
f,lass "BS 2.33 D 

Book ^D"3 

Copyright N° Q&-UV . 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



Nefo Testament Hantrfiookg 

EDITED BT 
SHAILER MATHEWS 



AN INTRODUCTION TO THE 
NEW TESTAMENT 



J^ew Cestament handbooks 

EDITED BY SHAILER MATHEWS 

THE -UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 



A series of volumes presenting briefly and intelligibly tbe 
results of the scientific study of the New Testament. Each vol- 
ume covers its own field, and is intended for the general reader as 
well as the special student. 

Arrangements have been made for the following volumes : — 

THE HISTORY OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. Professor Marvin R. Vincent, Union Theo- 
logical Seminary. [Beady. 

THE HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. Professor Henry S. Nash, Cambridge Divinity 
School. [Ready. 

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Professor B. Wisner Bacon, Yale Divinity School. [Ready. 

THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Professor J. R. S. Sterrett, Amherst College. 

THE HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES IN PALESTINE. 

Professor Shailer Mathews, The University of Chicago. 

[Ready. 
THE LIFE OF PAUL. President Rush Rhees, The University 
of Rochester. 

THE HISTORY OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Dr. C. W. Votaw, 

The University of Chicago. 

THE TEACHING OF JESUS. Professor George B. Stevens, 
Yale Divinity School. 

THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Pro- 
fessor E. P. Gould. [Ready. 

THE TEACHING OF JESUS AND MODERN SOCIAL PROB- 
LEMS. Professor Francis G. Peabody, Harvard Divinity 
School. 

THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE UNTIL EUSEBIUS. 

Professor J. W. Platner, Harvard Divinity School. 



AN INTRODUCTION 



TO 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 



BY 



BENJAMIN WISNER BACON, D.D. 

PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
IN TALE DIVINITY SCHOOL 



Nefo fgotft 
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., Ltd. 
1900 

Ml rights reserved 






59449 



Library of Congress 

Two Copies Received 
OCT 11 1900 

Copyright entry 

■CL!kS?ft.4r 

FIRST COPY. 

2nd Copy Dethwed ts 

ORDER DIVISION 

NOV 12 .g nu \ 



3> 



4? 




COPYRIGHT, 1900, 

By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 



Nortoooti 5|wb8 

J. S. Cushing & Co. — Berwick & Smith 
Norwood Mass. U.S.A. 



PREFACE 

The limitations of this volume are imposed by the 
editor. Even the mere outline, which alone is pos- 
sible in the narrowly prescribed space, might be made 
fairly complete if technical terminology, abbreviation, 
and the presuppositions admissible among experts 
were allowable. But to be easy and readable in a 
tenth of the space required and, at the same time, 
convey a true impression, is difficult. One must watch 
and pray not to tell half-truths. 

Nor can one, even so, be content merely to revamp 
for a different circle what is familiar to scholars in 
the great treatises. I have not been deterred from 
presenting views which are peculiar to myself when 
these seemed best to set forth the results toward 
which critical science is tending, by the consciousness 
that adequate presentation of my reasons is precluded. 
Scholars will recognise what is new. If valuable, they 
will adopt it ; if disapproved, they will bring it into 
the arena of debate, where opportunity will be given 
for completer discussion. In the writings which name 
their authors, independent study has led me to results 
more conservative than those of leading critics. Thus 
the cosmology of Ephesians appears to me essen- 



VI PREFACE 

tially Pauline. In the one point wherein the Tubin- 
gen critics were nearer to early tradition than most of 
their present opponents, the Johannine authorship of 
Revelation, I am compelled by the external evidence, 
which with them counted for so little, to go their way. 
Contrariwise, in the anonymous historical books my 
personal study has led to the conviction that our pres- 
ent gospels and Acts are the outcome of a longer and 
more complex process of growth than most critics 
admit. The problems of the Synoptic and Johannine 
Tradition, more especially that of the special sources 
of our third gospel and Acts, in connection with 
theories of the Western Text, defied all attempts at 
concise statement of accepted results in proper rela- 
tion to personal conviction. In the dilemma between 
justice to views which have obtained the sanction of 
the greatest modern scholars and to the solution which 
has finally commended itself to me as true, I have 
thrown myself upon the reviewer's mercy (reviewers 
are supposed to read prefaces), stating my results, 
though forced to do so with a baldness painfully sug- 
gestive of egotistic self-confidence. Yet I can but 
hope that some of the departures will be found to be 
not a going aside from the course of sober criticism, 
but, to some extent, in advance of it. The aim at 
least has been to set down nothing as fact which is 
in conflict with accepted results, nor as probable to 
which these do not appear to be leading up. 



PREFACE Vll 

If the attempted unity of impression has been at- 
tained, it will be found in a loyal response to the 
watchword of Harnack, " back to tradition," — or, 
rather, through tradition back to fact. The Tubingen 
attempt to overleap tradition on the way to the goal 
has brought a just reaction. No Introduction can 
fairly reflect the present state of the science which 
does not illustrate this fact. But the aim is not to 
learn what was thought in the eighteenth, nor even 
in the second, century about the New Testament writ- 
ings and their origin ; our goal is the same which 
criticism from the first has had in view, the facts 
themselves, only with larger attention than 'heretofore 
to early tradition as a means. Facts are the divine 
word, theories the human interpretation. The phe- 
nomena of text and tradition are the facts; a new 
theory will be preferable to the old in proportion as 
it adjusts itself to these. 

Two insertions have been made in the manuscript 
after delivery, at the editor's request : the logical 
analyses of the several books, and the appended bibli- 
ographies. The analyses, it is hoped, will do more 
than merely duplicate the synopses of contents which 
immediately follow, though disproportionate space 
may thus seem to be given to interpretation. The 
bibliographies were prepared under peculiar difficul- 
ties and are only adapted to the convenience of the 
reader unfamiliar with other than the English Ian- 



Vlll PREFACE 

guage, works in other languages being referred to 
only in the footnotes. But scarcely more than a selec- 
tion is made from English works. Reliance must be 
had on the larger works referred to for full lists of 
titles. 

In conclusion, I owe a debt of thanks to the friends 
who lent ready assistance when my own ill-health 
interrupted work upon the book for a period of many 
months, just as the first proof-sheets were beginning 
to come. To my colleagues, Professors W. F. Black- 
man and F. C. Porter, I am especially indebted, above 
all to Professor Porter, without whose kindness in 
taking down at dictation from a sick-bed the last 
chapter of the book, the delays would have been 
longer, and the faults for which I am fain to ask the 
reader's indulgence more conspicuous than is now the 
case. To my father, Dr. L. W. Bacon of Norwich, 
Ct., I am indebted for the preparation of the Indices 
and Table of Contents. 

The admirable discussion by Wernle, Die Synoptische 
Frage, 1899, published since chapters viii and ix were 
sent to press, came to hand too late for subsequent 
employment. Otherwise much labour would have been 
spared me, and a more finished, and, on secondary 
points in dispute, in some respects more accurate 
result presented to the reader. 

B. W. B. 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 

Preface v-viii 



PART I 

CRITICISM vs. TRADITION 

CHAPTER I 

New Testament Introduction. History, Method, 

Scope, and Present State of the Science . . 1-25 

The term "Introduction," 1. Method of this 
work, 2. Early attempts, 2. Ancient Introduc- 
tions, 3. Criticism of the Reformers, 3. Modern 
discussion, 4. Pounders of German criticism, 4. Con- 
fusion between science and doctrine, 5. Revolt 
against modern tradition, 6. Questioning of Pauline 
and Johannine writings, 6. Of the General Epistles, 
7. Of the Synoptic Gospels, 7. Conservative reac- 
tion, 9. Progress in Germany, 9. First precise defi- 
nition of Introduction, 10. A definite scope and 
method, 10. Strauss and Renan, 11. Historical vs. 
literary criticism, 12. Tubingen, 12. Corrected by 
Ritschl and Harnack, 14. Four currents of the Apos- 
tolic age, 14. Weizsacker, et al., 15. Extreme posi- 
tions abandoned, 16. Pauline Epistles, 16. Synoptic 
Gospels, 17. Resultant views, 18. Three schools of 
criticism, 19. " Centre," on the Gospels, 19. On the 
other books, 20. Radicals, 21. Outside of Ger- 
many, 22. English criticism, 23. The conservatives, 
24. Agreement of all schools in method and scope, 25. 
ix 



X CONTENTS 

CHAPTER II 

PAGE 

Growth of Tradition and Formation of the Canon 26-53 

External evidence, what ? 26. Threefold source of 
authority in primitive Church, 27. "Scripture" in 
post-apostolic age, 27. Revelation, 28. Gospel, 29. 
Early references, 30. Special writings discrimi- 
nated, 30. Epistles, 31. Gospels and Revelation, 32. 
Dependence on writings begins, 32. Apostolicity 
of authorship, 33. Collections of New Testament 
writings, 34. Canon of Marcion, 34. Ignatius, 35. 
Polycarp, 35. Barnabas, 36. The Didache, 37. 
Hermas, 38. Four Gospels distinguished, 38. Justin 
and Papias, 39. The Logia obsolete in Papias's 
time, 44. His use of other New Testament books, 45. 
Growing dependence on books, 45. Authority of New 
Testament books, 46. Justin, Tatian, Irenseus, 47. 
Clement of Alexandria, 48. Canon of Muratori, 50. 



PAKT II 

THE PAULINE EPISTLES 

CHAPTER III 

The Epistles of the First Period : Letter to the 
Galatians and Correspondence with Thessa- 
lonica 54-79 

Tradition of the priority of the Pauline Epistles, 54. 
Periods in Paul's literary career, 55. Admitted genu- 
ineness of major epistles, 56. Galatians the earliest 
New Testament writing, 57. Its date and occasion, 58. 
Churches of Galatia in Acts, 58. In the epistle, 59. 
Paul's opponents, 60. " Jews from Asia " ? 61. 
Analysis, 62. Contents, 63. Coincidence of Luke 
and Paul, 64. The Jerusalem agreement, 64. Subject 
to two constructions, 65. Jerusalem "decrees," 67. 



CONTENTS XI 

PAGK 

Paul withstands Peter at Antioch, 68. Separation of 
brethren, 68. Later rule of the Church, 69. Results 
of the Galatian crisis, 70. 

Correspondence with Thessalonica, 71. Analy- 
sis of 1 Thessalonians, 72. Of 2 Thessalonians, 72. 
Occasion of 1 Thessalonians, 73. Doctrinal con- 
tent, 73. Occasion of 2 Thessalonians, 74. Doctrinal 
content, 74. Practical content, 75. Genuineness, 75. 
Apocalyptic ideas of Jesus and of Paul, 76. Anti- 
christ in 2 Thessalonians, 77. Date, 78. 

CHAPTER IV 

Epistles of the First Period : Correspondence with 

Corinth, and Letter to Rome . . . 80-105 

1 and 2 Corinthians, 80. Church in Achaia, 81. 
Date of 1 Corinthians, 82. Events in Corinth, 83. 
Analysis of 1 Corinthians, 84. Of 2 Corinthians, 86. 
Factions rebuked in 1 Corinthians, 87. Scandals in 
the church, 89. Questions submitted : (1) Meats, 90. 
(2) Decorum in worship, 91. (3) Doctrine of resur- 
rection, 91. Date and occasion of 2 Corinthians, 91. 
Paul's antagonists, 92. Denunciatory letter, 93. 
Identified with 2 Corinthians, chapters 10-13, 94. 
Another fragment, 6 : 14-7 : 1, 95. 

Romans, 95. Analysis, 97. Occasion, character, 
and content, 98. Paul's gospel, 99. Relation of 
Jew and Gentile, 100. Conditions at Rome, 101. 
Chapter 16 a separate letter, 101. Addressed to 
Ephesus, 103. Verses 25-27 another fragment, 104. 

CHAPTER V 
Epistles of the Captivity 106-126 

Paul's silence at Csesarea, 106. Occasion of Phi- 
lemon, Colossians, Ephesians, 107. Paul's circum- 
stances, 107. Philemon : analysis, 108. 



CONTENTS 



Ephesians and Colossians : analysis, 109. Char- 
acter and object of Ephesians, 111. Christ and his 
people heirs of the universe, 112. The Colossian 
heresy, 113. Like conditions at Ephesus, 113. Ephe- 
sians, to whom addressed ? 114. To Laodiceans, 
among others, 115. Early accepted, 116. Genuine- 
ness, 116. Apocalyptic quotations, 121. 

Philippians : analysis, 121. Date, 122. Paul's 
circumstances, 123. Later than end of Acts, 124. 
Unity ? 124. Eelation of parts, 125. 

CHAPTER VI 

Secondary Canon of Pauline Epistles : Pastoral 

Epistles and Hebrews 127-149 

Early distinction among Pauline Epistles, 127. 
Distinction by modern critics, 128. Analysis : 1 and 
2 Timothy, 129. Titus, 130. Contents: 1 Tim- 
othy, 130. 2 Timothy, 131. Titus, 131. Historical 
situation in 2 Timothy, 132. Incompatible ele- 
ments, 133. Threefold difficulty, 135. Un-Pauline 
element, 139. 

Hebrews : Early treatment, 140. An indepen- 
dent author, 141. Analysis, 142. Nature and con- 
tent, 143. To whom addressed ? 145. Authorship, 147. 
Date, 148. Eorm of Judaism which it opposes, 149. 



PART III 

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES 

CHAPTER VII 

1 Peter, James, Jude, 2 Peter .... 150-174 

Various early canons, 150. 1 Peter not forged, 151. 
Analysis, 152. Content, 152. Pauline character, 153. 
Uses Ephesians and Romans, 163. Language, 154. 



CONTENTS 



Date and circumstances, 155. Written from Rome, 
156. Authenticity, 157. 

Jambs : Letter, or homily ? 158. Date, 158. Cir- 
cumstances, 159. Style and language, 160. Analy- 
sis, 161. Content, 162. Jewish, or Christian ? 163. 
Relation to Hebrews and Clement, 164. 

Jude and 2 Peter: Analysis, 166. Author of 
Jude, 166. 2 Peter: pseudonymous, 168. Use of 
epistles and apocalypses, 168. Date and object, 168. 
Gnostics opposed, 169. 2 Peter posterior, 170. Con- 
trast with 1 Peter, 172. Late date, 173. 



PAET IV 

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 

CHAPTER VIII 

The Stnoptic Tradition 175-194 

Biblical history anonymous, 175. Fourth Gospel 
stands apart, 176. Interrelation of the three Synop- 
tics, 177. Material in common, 179. How explained, 
180. Material peculiar to each, 181. Analysis of his- 
torical books : Mark, 183. Matthew, 184. Luke, 184. 
Acts, 185. Priority of Mark, 187. Two-document 
theory confirmed, 188. Order of events not chro- 
nological, 189. First, Logia; then, Mark's narra- 
tive, 192. 

CHAPTER LX 

The Synoptic Writers 195-229 

Vicissitudes of Matthew, 195. Aramaic origi- 
nal, 196. Character and date, 197. Relation to our 
Matthew, 198. Our Matthew late, 199. Elements 
from Logia, 200. Final recast, 202. 

Mark : Author and place, 203. Primitive criti- 



XIV CONTENTS 



cism, 205. Traits of eye-witness, 206. Traits of 
compilation, 207. Omissions of logia, 209. 

Luke — Acts: Traditional authorship, 211. Use 
of "Diary," 212. Hebraistic elements, 213. Ele- 
ments not from Diary, 215. Author's qualifica- 
tions, 217. Design of twofold work, 218. Peculiar 
material, 219. Earlier source, 223. " Interpolations," 
greater and less, 223. 

Acts : Composition, 225. Duplications, 226. 
Speeches, 227. The Diary, 228. Date, 229. 



PART V 

THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 
CHAPTER X 

The Apocaltpse and the Epistles . . . 230-250 

Place of origin, 230. Only one John of Ephesus, 231. 
Apocalyptic literature, 232. In the church, 233. 

Revelation : Analysis, 234. Unity, 235. Assertion 
of authorship, 236. Apostolic title not claimed, 237. 
Dissimilarity to Gospel and Epistles, 238. Indepen- 
dent writer using prior materials, 239. Questioned 
after 300 a. d. , 240. Primeval tradition confirmed, 241. 
Indications of late date, 242. 

1 John : Analysis, 244. Design, 245. 2 John and 
3 John : Analysis, 246. Authorship, 246. 

CHAPTER XI 
The Gospel according to John .... 251-279 

Nature of the book and tradition of its origin, 251. 
State of the problem, 252. Analysis, 253. Design, 254. 
Against Gnostic-baptists, 254. Appeals to (1) teach- 



CONTENTS XV 

PAGK 

ing of the Spirit; (2) historic traditions, 256. The 
discourses, 257. Unhistorical, related to cycle of 
Jewish feasts, 258. Based on genuine logia, 259. 
And on historical data, 260. Call to Messiahship and 
function of the Baptist, 261. The seven "signs," 262. 
Anachronisms and relation to Synoptics, 263. Points 
of historical superiority, 264. Supplements synoptic 
tradition, 265. Corrects date of crucifixion, 266. In 
agreement with Paul, 267. Main source of Gospel, 268. 
Three contributors distinguishable, 270. (1) Son of 
Zebedee ; (2) presbyter of Ephesus ; (3) redactor, 271. 
Displacements by R., 272. In what sense Johan- 
nine, 274. Date, 276. 

Summary: (1) The named books, 277. (2) The 
anonymous books, 278. Tradition vs. criticism, 278. 

Table of Approximate Dates 280 

Index 281 



AN 

INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 



PART I 
CRITICISM vs. TRADITION 

CHAPTER I 

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION. HISTORY, METHOD, 
SCOPE, AND PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE 

Schleiermacher illustrates the special use of the The term 

term " Introduction " by referring to its common use, ". Int I r , odu c- 

J ° ' tion. 

particularly in modern editions of ancient works. A 

modern book may often dispense with an introduction, 
but with lapse of time it becomes increasingly needful 
to supply that indispensable element of knowledge 
common to author and readers, which in ordinary 
circumstances may be tacitly presupposed. Thus, 
Demosthenes's oration On the Croicn would be unin- 
telligible to us without an explanation of the his- 
torical circumstances, the requirements of Athenian 
law, the policy of Philip and Alexander of Macedon, 
the relation of Demosthenes to his client Ctesiphon, his 
own public career and that of his antagonist ^Eschines. 
Eecently the public have become familiar with books 
and fragments unexpectedly recovered from ancient 
libraries, or the sands of Egypt, such as the Teaching 

B 1 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Method to 
be here fol- 
lowed. 



Earliest 



of the Twelve Apostles 1 or the so-called Gospel of Peter. 
What meaning could they convey without the accom- 
panying historico-literary explanations of experts em- 
bodied in an " Introduction " ? 

With these illustrations in mind, we shall be better 
prepared to frame our own definition of " Introduc- 
tion " by reviewing the history of the science. 

Familiar assumption has obscured to our minds the 
fact that most of the New Testament writings really 
come to us without a title-page, destitute of date or 
author's name, save such as late, ambiguous, and often 
contradictory tradition has supplied. Some lack be- 
ginning (Hebrews), or ending (Mark). The letters of 
Paul, fortunately, are carefully superscribed with the 
names of author and recipients ; but without some 
idea of the circumstances of the correspondence on 
both sides, they will be scarcely better understood 
than the audible half of a telephone conversation, and 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, 1, 2, and 
3 John are anonymous. The natural outgrowth of 
these conditions has been the science of Introduction. 

The Authorised Version still retains the attempts 
of early scribes to furnish the required information 
in its titles and subscripts, which in the later manu- 
scripts gradually extended to greater and greater 
length. The beginnings of this accumulation of tra- 
ditional data can be traced to a period near the mid- 
dle of the second century, when the Church began to 
appreciate the special value of "apostolic" writings. 
Its development is traced in Histories of the Forma- 
tion of the Canon. Suffice it for the present that by 
the end of the second century the leading churches 
of the Empire, east and west, were approximating 
both a uniform practice as to which writings out of 



1 Referred to hereafter as AiS. 



CRITICISM vs. TRADITION 3 

the mass in circulation were suitable for public read- 
ing in the churches, and in justification of the selec- 
tion a uniform tradition of their origin and history. 1 
As the object of the compilers of this tradition was 
not so much impartial history as the justification of 
their own list as " apostolic" against rivals, later 
generations are compelled to estimate and interpret 
their conclusions in comparison with other authorities 
and with the books themselves. But the birth of a 
genuine science was long delayed. 

The admirable Church History of Eusebius 2 (a.d. 324) Ancient 
served all the purposes of an Introduction to the New J^^ 110 " 
Testament for a millennium, and is still the great the- 
saurus of information. True, a book entitled An Intro- 
duction to the Holy Scriptures was written ca. 450 a.d., 
by a certain Hadrian, which Cassiodorus (f ca. 570) 
enumerates and transcribes together with four similar 
works written between 380 and 551 ; but these really 
treat of methods of exegesis, while mediaeval and 
Catholic writers down to the time of the Reformation 
give us no more than indiscriminate compilations of 
tradition from Cassiodorus and the church historians 
and commentators in defence of the received Canon. 

Even Luther, Carlstadt, and Calvin, in debating the Criticism 
genuineness, inspiration, and canonicity of 2 Peter, former^. 6 " 
James, Eevelation, and other books, were actuated by 
a doctrinal rather than a historical interest, and made 
no systematic attempt to supply the need. It was 
rather in opposition to the doctrine of an infallible 
Scripture, developed by the post-Reformation dog- 
matists as an offset to the infallible hierocracy of 
Rome, that Richard Simon, priest of the Oratory at 

1 The list adopted at Rome ca. 175 a.d. is given in the frag- 
ment discovered by Muratori in 1740. See p. 51. 

2 Referred to as Eus. Hist. See the translation with notes 
by A. C. McGiffert, Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, 1890. 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Modern 
discussion. 



Founders of 

German 

Criticism. 



Paris (t 1712), brought out the first treatise worthy 
to be called an Introduction. 1 

Simon devoted only the first 230 pages out of more 
than 2000 to problems of Introduction in the modern 
sense ; but besides proving by textual criticism the 
unauthenticity of Mk. 16 : 9-20, Jn. 7 : 53-8 : 11, 1 Jn. 
5 : 7-8, he also discussed such questions of the higher 
criticism as the dates and order of the Gospels, the 
purpose of Luke in writing his Gospel, and "ancient 
opinion, Oriental and Occidental, as to the Pauline 
authorship and canonicity of Hebrews." 

Such free handling of the tradition was, of course, 
denounced, especially by Protestants. But even Simon's 
opponents were fain to imitate his attempt at a His- 
tory of the New Testament, besides borrowing copi- 
ously from his material. But the interest was still 
polemic, still there was insistence on treating the New 
Testament as a unit, not merely every book of which, 
but each individual verse and letter, must be what 
tradition represented, or the whole was religiously 
worthless. 

The establishment of the science on a better basis 
is largely owing to two German theologians, J. D. Mich- 
aelis 2 (f 1791) and J. S. Sender 3 (t 1791). The former 
undertook to defend the genuineness and credibility of 
the books rather than their divine inspiration ; the 
latter proved that the Canon was not a mere divine 
fiat, but the outcome of a process of human selection, 
providentially guided, indeed, yet so slow and halting 
that by 200 a.d. it had reached no more than the broad 



1 Histoire critique du N. T., Rotterdam, 1689-95. 

2 Einleitung in die Gottlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes, 
1750-1780 *. The edition of 8 1777 is the first to treat the entire 
N. T. (Engl. tr.). 

8 Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanons, 1771- 
1775 (four parts). 



CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 5 

outline of its results, and for centuries thereafter con- 
tinued in dispute. 1 It was natural to hold that a selec- 
tion so fallible in character must be reexamined in its 
grounds and perhaps altered, as if the function of In- 
troduction were to criticise canonicity. 2 

Here was an unfortunate confusion of the theological The limits 

question of the wisdom of the selection made by the k e . tween 
^ J science am 

Fathers under providential guidance for the practical doctriDe 
purposes of edification, with the historical question of obscure • 
the correctness of the theory and tradition of Apos- 
tolic authorship on which they rested it. The choice 
is a fact of "natural (i.e. divine) selection," which 
every added century of the Church's experience makes 
more immutable. The theory was demonstrably false 
in many particulars and has varied in every age. 

It was long before theologians could see that a Presump- 
defence of the traditional date, origin, arid literary 
character of each New Testament book is a mere 
encumbrance to the doctrines of inspiration, revelation, 
and canonicity, obstructing the legitimate inquiry of 
the historian. Critics were equally slow to see that 
the discovery that tradition often misrepresents the 
mode of the divine revelation and propagation of the 
truth is no refutation of the fact. 

1 Cf. the admirable statement of Loescher, quoted by Driver, 
Introd. to 0. T., p. 36 : Nonuno, quoddicunt, actuab hominibus, 
sed paulatim, a Deo, animormn temporumque rectore, productus. 

2 The definition " Criticism of the Canon," meaning investi- 
gation of the theory and tradition of Apostolic authorship on 
which the selection of the canonical books was theoretically 
based, is practically misleading. The Bible Canon is a finality, v 
a survival of the fittest in a process unalterably complete. But 
"fitness" in this case was determined far less by the critical 
opinions of rabbis and Fathers than by the instinct of Synagogue 
and Church, retaining in use books found practically to embody 
the faith, a long- deferred, fully enlightened verdict of the people, 
whose voice thus uttered is the voice of God. 



tions hard to 
overcome. 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Revolt 
against 
modern 
tradition. 



Results. 
The Pauline 
and Johan- 
nine writ- 



Michaelis undertook to defend the genuineness of 
every New Testament book, but had admitted the 
task to be " difficult " in the case of Jude. The spirit 
of revolt against a modern tradition whose dogmas 
encroached upon foreign ground soon proved that 
there would be " difficulty " in other and much graver 
cases. The early years of our century are signalised 
by an outburst of debate not merely reviving the dis- 
putes of the first three centuries, but soon calling in 
question the authenticity of the hitherto unquestioned. 
In most cases the debate is still open, in few only can 
it be said to be approaching settlement to-day. 1 

Ancient tradition had been practically unanimous 
in accepting all the epistles which profess to be from 
Paul. The Pastoral Epistles were now disputed, not 
so much because of their rejection by Marcion (140 a.d.), 
as on internal grounds. 2 Thessalonians followed suit. 
John and 1 John had been traditionally attributed since 
ca. 175 a.d. to the Apostle, with all but unanimous 
consent. 2 Bretschneider 3 now brought against these a 
criticism of such weight that while its own author 
quailed and retracted before the storm of protest 
aroused, the question of the authorship of the " Johan- 



1 Of authors whose Introductions followed that of Michaelis 
only H. K. A Hanlein (Handbuch der Einleitung in die Schrif- 
ten des N. T., 1794-1800, 2 1801-1809 — Abstract, 1802) and 
J. E. C. Schmidt (Historiseh-kritische Einleitung in d. N. T. 
1804-1805, 3 1818) need be mentioned. The latter was first to 
question the authenticity of 2 Thess. and the Pastoral Epistles. 
Schleiermacher followed, casting the weight of his great influ- 
ence against 1 Tim., but failing to appreciate its solidarity with 
2 Tim. and Tit. 

2 An unimportant sect represented by Caius of Rome (180- 
235), called Alogi by Epiphanius, had rejected the Johannine 
writings on grounds as arbitrary as Marcion's. 

8 Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolartim Joannis Apostoli 
Indole et Origine, 1820. 



CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 7 

nine " writings remains to this day the most open as well 
as the most difficult of New Testament criticism. 

Needless to say that since Simon's day an ever in- The General 
creasing number of scholars agree with the verdict of pist es ' 
Origen (230 a.d.) as to Hebrews, " God only knows 
who wrote it ; " moderns adding, however, that Paul 
certainly did not. James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 
3 John, Eevelation, the disputed books of antiquity, 1 
were of course widely denied to their ostensible or re- 
puted authors. Even 1 Peter, hitherto undisputed, 
was admitted by Sender and Eichhorn (1818) as Pe- 
trine only in an indirect sense. The state of the science 
during this period is clearly shown in the Introduc- 
tions of two great German scholars, J. G. Eichhorn, 2 
already named, and "W". M. L. de Wette. 

Eichhorn applied a too undisciplined conjecture to The 
the problem, but rendered his most real service in ^ynop ic 
formulating into a definite theory the fruits of earlier 
discussion of the curious combination of identity and 
dissimilarity between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, known 
as " Synoptic " Gospels from their common point of view. 
Twenty years before, Storr, Koppe, and Michaelis had 
attacked this problem from the standpoint of the his- 
torian of literature rather than the hitherto sovereign 
harmonist. Augustine (396 a.d.) had, indeed, offered 
an explanation, holding in his treatise On the Agree- 
ment of the Evangelists (I, 2, 4, 12), that " Mark merely 
followed in the footsteps of Matthew, abridging his 
Gospel." This theory of dependence on the part of 
one evangelist on the other was now applied in various 
orders, and Griesbach 3 supplemented it by suggested 

1 So Eus. Mst., Ill, 25, 1, following Origen (Ibid., vi., 25, 
3-14) . Eusebius personally would have rejected Rev. and 2 Pet. 

2 Einleitung in d. N. T., 1804-27 (five volumes). 

8 Commentatio qua Marci Evang. totum e 3Iatthcei et Lucce 
Commentariis descriptum esse monstratur, 1789-90. 



8 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



combination : Mark had made a somewhat servile ab- 
stract of Matthew and Luke. But Eichhorn became 
the founder of modern Gospel criticism by showing 
that the coincidences and differences antedate our pres- 
ent writers. He advanced the theory of a primitive 
Gospel employed by all three. This Urevangelium 
theory for twenty years was variously modified and 
adapted to meet the complicated phenomena. 1 

De Wette. The great Introduction of all this period, however, 

was that of W. M. L. de Wette. 2 It was conceived in 
a truly scientific spirit and shows historical method ; 
but the author's principle, to go no further in affirma- 
tion than " the point to which we are led by tangible 
data," gave it a somewhat negative character. Ephe- 
sians, already questioned by Schleiermacher, De Wette 
pronounced " a verbose amplification " of Colossians, 
and at first 3 confirmed the doubts already expressed 
by Schmidt (op. tit.) against 2 Thessalonians. With 
Schmidt, Eichhorn, and Bretschneider he would add 
to the " disputed " books of antiquity the Pastoral Epis- 
tles, 1 Peter, John, and 1 John. 

Summary. Thus in the first third of the century we see the 

theological world, Catholic and Protestant, not in 
Germany only, but in Holland, France, England, and 
even beyond the Atlantic, roused to the consciousness 
that the reign of tradition as to the origin of the ca- 
nonical books was imperilled, if not already overthrown. 

1 The Synoptic problem soon became a discipline in itself, 
whose older history is best summarised in Holtzmann's Die 
Synopt. Evang., 1863, pp. 15-43. For the subsequent history 
and present state of the problem see O. Cone, Gospel- Criticism, 
etc., 1891, and articles by Sanday, Expositor, IV, iii, and 
Wendt, New World, June, 1895. 

2 Lehrbuch der historisch-lcritischen Einleitung in die Bibel 
A. und N. T., 1826, 6 1848. The edition by Messner and Lune- 
mann ( 6 1860) modifies in a spirit of conservatism. 

8 In editions 1-4. 



CBITICISM VS. TBABITION 9 

Indeed, the revolt had gone further still. Schleier- 
macher * and Credner 2 had urged the necessity of dis- 
tinguishing our Matthew from the simple compilation 
of discourses of the Lord " in Hebrew," to which the 
oldest tradition bore witness, leaving of undisputed 
New Testament writings nothing in the strict sense 
" Apostolic " save eight epistles of Paul. 

Again a Roman Catholic scholar came to the rescue. Conserva- 
The ablest as well as most brilliant contribution from action" 
this branch of the Church down to our own day is that 
of J. L. Hug 3 (fl846), who skilfully adopted the 
methods of the new science only to prove how need- 
less were its criticisms of the traditional views. Ob- 
jections to each and all of the canonical books were 
plausibly explained away. The evangelists simply 
made use of one another in the order of the canon. 
In England Home's Introduction 4 fulfilled a similar 
apologetic purpose. Meanwhile Michaelis, Hug, and 
De Wette were translated into French and English. 

But Germany remained the home of the science. Progress in 
Here it was vindicating its right to a place among German y- 
theological disciplines by definition of its scope and 
disavowal of a polemic or negative animus. De Wette 
had conceived his task as a branch of hermeneutics, 
but confessed at the outset that Introduction "is 
devoid of any true scientific principle and necessary 
connection." His work, accordingly, was a mere 
aggregate of material adapted to the Bible-reader's 
need of a historical background. Schleiermacher urged 
a development of the science in this direction, but 

1 Stiidien u. Kritiken, 1832, p. 735. 

2 Beitrdge zur Einleitung in die bibl. Schriften, 1832-1838, 
and Einleitung i. d. N. T., 1836. 

3 Einleitung i. d. Schriften d. N". T., Freiburg, 1808, * 1847. 

4 An Introd. to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the 
Holy Scripture, 1818, » 1846. 



10 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



definition of 
Introduc- 
tion. 



himself evinced a more historical point of view than 
his predecessors by adopting a chronological order for 
his discussion, placing first the Pauline Epistles. In 
Lucke's preface to the posthumous work, 1 however, 
Introduction is still defined as "criticism of the 
Canon." 2 Credner, on the contrary, had defined it as 
"the history of the New Testament," making the 
science a branch of the history of literature, though 
his method was an investigation of the individual books 
in the order of the printed text. The first to give 
systematic application to the principle was E. Reuss 
First precise (f 1891), the veteran Biblical scholar of Strassburg. 3 
Reuss undertook to relate (1) the origin of the indi- 
vidual writings of the New Testament, according to 
the order of date which he believed he could deter- 
mine (Literary History) ; (2) the account of the union 
of these books in a sacred collection received in the 
churches (History of the Formation of the Canon) ; 
(3) the account of the preservation and transmission 
of this collection (History of the Text) ; (4) its dif- 
fusion (History of the Translations), and (5) its inter- 
pretation (History of Exegesis). 

Thus the science of Introduction was gradually re- 
duced to a definite scope and method. Treated as a 
branch of ecclesiastical history it escaped the Scylla 
of mere negative polemic, and the Charybdis of mere 
apologetic. At the same time it shook off the incubus 
of indefinite extension into the domains of general 
hermeneutics, Biblical archaeology, philology, geog- 
raphy, general history, with which it had been en- 
cumbered. No wonder that Julicher in his admirable 



The science 
attains a 
definite 
scope and 
method. 



1 Einleitung i. d. N. T., edited by Wolde (Sammtliehe 
Werke, i, 8, 1845). 

2 So even Baur and Holtzmann ; but in a different sense. 

8 Die Gesch. d. heiligen Schriften N. T., 1842, 5 1887. Eng- 
lish translation published by Houghton and Mifflin. 



CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 11 

handbook, 1 treats Eeuss's definition as final, declaring jiiiicher's 
Introduction to be " that branch of historical science, defimtl0n - 
in particular of the history of literature, whose sub- 
ject is the New Testament ; " for in the meantime 
had appeared a noble work of this type, the widely 
known Introduction of F. Bleek 2 (f 1859), not yet 
wholly free from the digressions of De Wette, but 
steadily pursuing the historical purpose and method, 
though with more conservative results. Bleek reluc- 
tantly, but decisively, abandoned the identification of 
our canonical Matthew with the Apostolic Logia, and 
treated 1 Timothy and 2 Peter as unauthentic. Beve- 
lation he attributed not to John the Apostle, but to 
a supposed Ephesian elder of that name. He main- 
tained with vigour and true scientific method the 
authenticity of the other books. 

The great critical movement inaugurated by Strauss Strauss 
and the Tubingen scholars, which midway in the cen- a Kenan 
tury shook the theological world to its foundations, 
has permanently affected the science of Introduction, 
but not by its specific conclusions. The celebrated 
author of the mythical theory of New Testament 
story 3 made no pretensions to have applied the pro- 
cesses of literary or documentary criticism to his 
sources, for the very reason that he considered his 
Canons of historical criticism to have already proved 
them unworthy of the effort. Almost equal neglect 
characterised his great rival in France. 4 His ortho- 
dox opponents generally took the same position from 

1 Einleitung i. d. N. T., 2 1894, p. 1. 

2 Einleitung i. d. X. T., 1862. Engl, by T. & T. Clark, 1883. 
The third and fourth German editions by W. Mangold (1875, 
1886) are adapted by footnotes to the advance of the science. 
These often contradict the text. 

8 Das Leben Jesu, D. E. Stra,uss, 1835 (Engl, transl.). 
4 Vie de Jesus, E. Kenan, 1863, 13 1882 (Engl, transl.). 



12 



NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION 



Historical 
vs. literary 
criticism. 



Tubingen's 
influence 
upon Intro- 
duction. 



the opposite motive, to their own great detriment. 
The Tubingen School, founded by F. C. Baur, was 
also a school of historical rather than literary criti- 
cism, but not so oblivious of the need for a basis in 
scientific analysis of the documents. The Synoptic 
writings became, accordingly, the special field of 
debate, but results were almost wholly vitiated by 
undue haste to apply a special theory of the progress 
of events, making use of negative results already 
attained in behalf of this theory, and employing it in 
turn against some of the few remaining undisputed 
sources. Doubtless it was time that historical criti- 
cism should endeavour to draw from even crudely clas- 
sified materials a more consistent picture of the age 
which gave them birth. Early Christian literature, 
inside and outside the Canon, is the precipitate of a 
great movement of religious thought, and must be 
studied as the product of definite currents of human 
opinion in a continuous process. Theoretically, there- 
fore, the result should serve to interpret church tradi- 
tion as embodied in its canon. Practically Baur and 
his adherents were as overconfident in their recon- 
struction of history as their dogmatic opponents, and 
they used it as if bent on destroying tradition rather 
than interpretiDg it. Nevertheless, the attempt to 
bring the somewhat vague, disconnected, and negative 
results of literary criticism into definite relations with 
historical processes was salutary. Baur wrote no Intro- 
duction, nor did any of his earlier followers. Only a 
deeply and wisely modified remnant of Tubingen views 
remains in its one great Introduction by A. Hilgenfeld 
of Jena. 1 But the discussions of special topics by Baur, 
Zeller, and Schwegler 2 revolutionised the methods of 
the science. 

1 Einleitung i. d. N. T., 1875. 

2 See in particular by Baur : Die Christuspartei in Korinth 



CEITICISM VS. TRADITION 13 

The fulcrum for the whole theory was found in the The 
greater Pauline Epistles, whose genuineness had never l^ff^ 
been questioned, and whose internal character might 
well be assumed to make suspicion forever impossible. 
As contemporary letters these threw an unintended 
and thus more trustworthy light upon the period. Its 
dominant feature seemed to be the struggle of infant 
Christianity to free itself from the swaddling bands 
of Judaism. The echoes of this great struggle are 
still audible at the close of the second century, when 
literature becomes fairly abundant. Midway of the 
century stands Marcion, champion of an extreme Pau- 
linism, rejecting all Scripture save ten epistles of Paul 
and the Gospel of Luke. A decade or two later were 
placed the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, sup- 
posedly representing an extreme form of Judaistic her- 
esy and attacking Paul under the guise of Simon Magus. 
Writers of this period show that the great body of the 
Church had come meantime to occupy a mediate, though 
not altogether consistent, position, from which extrem- 
ists on both sides were excluded as heretics. What 
more natural than to find here evidences of a histori- 
cal progress of Hegelian type, from the antagonism 
of Jewish (Petrine) against Gentile (Pauline) Chris- 
tianity to the higher unity of the Catholic Christian- 
ity of Justin Martyr and Irenseus, and in the stages of 
advance the touchstone and key to the New Testa- 
ment writings ? The historical setting of each would 

in the Tub. Zts. f. Th., 1831 ; Paulus der Apostel <&c, 1845, 
2 1866 (English); Kritische TJntersuchungen ilber d. Kan. 
Evang., 1847 ; and for a comprehensive view, Kirchengeschichte 
der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1853. 

Zeller's contributions as editor of the Theol. Jahrb. extend 
from 1842 to 1857. His Apostelgeschichte, 1854, appeared in 
English in 1875, and has value. 

Schwegler set forth the theory comprehensively in his Das 
nachapost. Zeitalter, 1846. 



14 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Tubingen 
views of 
the history 
corrected. 



Harnack's 
four cur- 
rents of the 
Apostolic 
Age. 



be revealed by its animus or " tendency," whether 
polemic or conciliatory. 

The church historians of more recent times, Eitschl 1 
and Harnack, 2 have taught us that Baur's supposedly 
dominant issue of early Christianity had already 
ceased to be dominant by 70 a.d., when the last 
claims of Jerusalem to be the centre of Christen- 
dom forever disappeared. Thus Paul himself may 
well have witnessed, if he did not personally effect, 
the great reconciliation for which in Eom. 15 : 30-33 
we see him risking his life (cf. Acts 20 : 22-24). Not 
two but four principal currents of thought must be 
distinguished in the later Apostolic age, whose ten- 
dencies are thus classified by Harnack : (1) The Gos- 
pel has to do with the people of Israel, and with the 
Gentile world only on the condition that believers 
attach themselves to the people of Israel (particular- 
ism and legalism, in practice and in principle, which, 
however, was not to cripple the obligation to prose- 
cute the work of Missions). (2) The Gospel has to 
do with Jews and Gentiles : the first, as believers in 
Christ, are under obligation as before to observe the 
Law, the latter are not (universalism in principle, par- 
ticularism in practice). (3) The Gospel has to do 
with both Jews and Gentiles : no one is any longer 
under obligation to observe the Law ; for the Law is 
abolished, and the salvation procured by Christ's death 
is appropriated by faith. The Old Testament in its 
literal sense is of divine origin, but was intended from 
the first only for a definite epoch of history (Paulin- 
ism : universalism in principle and in practice ; tem- 
porary validity of the whole Law.) (4) The Gospel 
has to do Avith Jews and Gentiles : no one need, there- 

1 Entstehung der altcath. Kirche, 2 1857 (Engl, transl.). 

2 Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 1888- 3 94. Engl. 1896. 
Chronologie d. altchristl. Literatur, 1897. 



CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 15 

fore, be under obligation to observe the ceremonial 
commandments and sacrificial worship, because these 
commandments themselves are only the wrappings of 
moral and spiritual commandments which the Gospel 
exhibits in the perfect form (universalism in princi- 
ple and in practice in virtue of a neutralising of the 
distinction between Law and Gospel, old and new. 
The Law never had validity save in a spiritualised 
and universalised interpretation). 1 

For the sober second thought of the school of Baur, Later repre- 
corrected by church historians within and without th<fschooi. 0f 
the pale, we must look to the brilliant work of C. 
Weizsacker 2 both as a literary and historical critic. 
For it was in the field of Introduction that retractation 
was most imperative and complete. The " tendency " 
which Tubingen critics found so clearly marked in 
Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse, and by which they Weizsacker. 
undertook wholly to supersede tradition, is now ac- 
knowledged to have been almost wholly fanciful. Eig- 

1 Abridged from Harnack, Hist, of Dogma (Engl.), Vol. I, 
ch. ii, Supplement 2. Of these four tendencies only (2) and 
(3) are directly represented in the N. T. (1) is the view of 
the Judaisers, overcome by the common opposition of Paul, 
James, and the older Apostles. (2) is the view taken by James 
and the older Apostles, and is the basic idea of the Synoptic 
writers and Rev. In practice it met the difficulty of finding a 
modus vivendi between Jewish and Gentile Christians (Acts 15 : 
28, 29, Eev. 2 : 14, 20, Aid. 6:3). (3) was at first accepted by 
Peter as well as Paul (Gal. 2 : 11 sq.). The breach at Antioch 
was caused by Peter's reaction to (2) under the influence of 
"certain from James." (4) may be called Hellenism or Alex- 
andrianism, and found points of connection with pre-Christian 
attempts to universalise Judaism. Apollos would seem to be its 
N. T. representative. Elements of Acts (ch. 7), Heb. and Jn. 
are affected by it, as the Synoptics and Rev. have elements that 
still show traces of (1). 

2 Das apost. Zeitalter d. christl. Kirche, 1886, 2 1892 (Engl, 
transl. The Apostolic Age). 



1G 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Extreme, 
but now 
abandoned, 
positions of 
Baur. 



Their 

position on 
questions of 
Introduc- 
tion. 

1. Pauline 
Epistles. 



orous application of the theory led Baur to outdo the 
scepticism of Schmidt, Bretschneider, and De Wette. 
Only Boinans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians were 
left as authentic Pauline Epistles, the other six in his 
judgment reflecting various phases of the struggle 
against Gnosticism, which followed after the Petro- 
Pauline controversy. Matthew and Luke exhibited 
traces of more than one superimposed type of doctrine, 
but that of Mark was latest, a colourless compend of 
Matthew and Luke of the conciliatory type. Matthew 
was Petrine, Luke and Acts Pauline, but modified in 
the interests of conciliation. The Johannine Epistles 
and Gospel were intelligible only in the age of the 
second century theologians, when the " Catholic " faith 
was assuming shape. Only Bevelation exhibited the 
intense and narrow Jewish conservatism of that 
Apostle who in the compact of Gal. 2 : 9 had classed 
himself with Peter as an Apostle to the circumcision 
only. 1 Peter, as deutero-Pauline in character, was 
necessarily late and unauthentic, James anti-Pauline, 
but late, Jude and 2 Peter anti-Gnostic, like the 
Pastoral Epistles. 

The inexorable march of discovery has forced back, 
by fully half a century, some of the latest dates as- 
signed by the " tendency " critics, while the greatest 
of Baur's followers have made haste to retract his 
unjustifiable rejection of the Pauline Epistles not pre- 
viously questioned. Holsten, 1 it is true, remained rigid 
to the end in rejecting all but the four, even while his 
keenly discriminating interpretation of Paulinism 2 ef- 
fected more than a conciliation between Peter and Paul ; 
but Hilgenfeld, 3 the most distinctive living adherent of 

iZts.f.w. Th., 1872, p. 456. 

2 Evang. d. Paulas a. d. Petrus, 1867, and Evang. d. Paulas 
dargestellt, Pt. I, 1880, Pt. II (posthumous), 1898. 
8 Sist.-krit. Einleitung i. d. N T., 1875. 



CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 17 

the school, has proved that 1 Thessalonians, Philippi- 
ans, and Philemon must be by the same author as 
Galatians and Corinthians, while Weizsacker, Baur's 
worthy successor at Tubingen, and 0. Pfleiderer, 1 
nearest to Holsten of living interpreters of Paul, 
recede still further toward the pre-Ttibingen views, 
rejecting as un-Pauline only 2 Thessalonians, Ephe- 
sians, Colossians(?), and the Pastoral Epistles, and 
admitting a Pauline basis even here, at least in Ephe- 
sians and 2 Timothy. 

Baur's Synoptic theory has not a living adherent, for 2. Synoptic 
Volkmar 2 and Pfleiderer follow the prevailing view of Gos P els - 
the dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark, dat- 
ing their proto-Mark in 70-80 a.d., Luke ca. 100-110, 
Matthew 110-130. Weizsacker 3 scarcely differs from 
the views of Holtzmann, and even Hilgenfeld retains 
only the priority of a proto-Matthew to Mark. Thus 
in matters of date and authorship criticism reverts to 
where it was before the rise of the Tubingen School. 
Says Harnack, " Baur's brilliant attempt to explain 
' Catholicism ' as a product of the mutual conflict and 
neutralising of Jewish and Gentile Christianity reck- 
oned with two factors, of which the one had no sig- 
nificance at all, and the other only an indirect effect."* 
The growth of the Church was a progressive Hellenis- 
ing of Old Testament religion in the Gentile world, 
but the currents traceable in its literature were many 
and complex. Of true Jewish Christianity there is no 
trace in the New Testament save indirectly in Paul 

1 Das Urchristenthum, seine Schriften u. Lehren, 1887, and 
Der Paulinismus, 1873, 2 1890 (Engl, transl.). 

2 Die Evangelien, oder Marcus u. d. Synopsis, 1870, 2 1876 ; 
Jesus Nazarenus, 1882. Substantially represented by Super- 
natural Religion, an Inquiry, etc., 1874, 8 1879. 

3 Evangelische Geschichte, 1864. 

* Hist, of Dogma (Engl, of Buchanan), I, p. 293. 



18 



NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION 



Resultant 
views in the 
history of 
N. T. litera- 
ture. 



and the underlying sources of Bevelation 1 and the Syn- 
optic writers. True Paulinism was also very limited 
in its direct influence. Almost equally strong is the 
reaction against the violence of " tendency " theories of 
forgery. 

Yet we owe much to Baur. "He has taught us," 
says Julicher, "to appreciate the books of the New 
Testament in a truly historical way, as products of 
the spirit of Christianity at a definite time and as 
witnesses for it." In this light we may class them 
in four great groups, according to their purpose. The 
beginnings of the literature emanate from the struggle 
against pure legalistic Judaism, in Paul's day a still 
threatening though vanquished power. But there is 
a rapid change of front. In the latest writings the 
danger is from Gnosticism, a theosophic, eclectic prop- 
aganda, which sought to Hellenise Jewish and Chris- 
tian ideas in systems now ascetic, now antinomian, 
but always dualistic. Internally the growth of the 
Church is marked by the growth of a didactic, cate- 
chetic literature illustrated in the Synoptic writings, 
1 Peter and James, and theologies illustrated in He- 
brews and John. 

Such are the impressions left in our field from a 
half century of historical criticism. Harnack rightly 
welcomes the "retreat all along the line" of the "ten- 
dency" critics as a " return to tradition." What should 
be observed, however, is that the tradition in question is 
not that of the eighteenth, but of the second, century ; 
for it is significant that in the same breath he cites as 
its truest interpreters the Introductions of Julicher 
and Holtzmann, 2 the two which, if any, represent the 
best results of the schools of Bleek and Baur. 3 

1 Jewish pure and simple in the peculiar view of Harnack. 

2 Lehrbuch d. hist.-krit Einleitung i. d. N. T., 1885, 3 1892. 
8 Reference in Chron. d. altchr. Lit., pp. 8, 10. 



CBITICISM VS. TRADITION 19 

A psychological law seems to decree that, in move- The 
merits of opinion, men shall group themselves into an ' ( ',? e f " t , r , e » " , 
extreme right of immovable conservatives, a right cen- "right" of 
tre of conservatives capable of advance, a left centre criticism - 
of cautious progressives, and an extreme left of radi- 
cals. So in the case of the great wave set in motion 
by Strauss and Baur. Of the first group we need say 
nothing, because mere reassertions of tradition have 
no effect on progress, convincing only those convinced 
before. Scarcely more than this were the anti-Tubin- 
gen replies of Guericke l and Hofmann, 2 though Lut- 
hardt, Hofmann's pupil, did better work in defence of 
the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel. 3 But 
Credner, Schleiermacher, and De Wette had successors 
who learned from the Tubingen School, while refusing 
to be carried away by its " tendency " theory. Such 
was the erratic H. Ewald. 4 Such were Reuss, Bleek, 
and Mangold, already mentioned, with whom we have 
ventured to class Julicher as the most liberal of con- 
servatives, though he himself defers to Holtzmann, to 
whose work, accordingly, we must look as that of the 
most conservative of liberals. It began with an epoch- 
making study of the Synoptic problem. 

Gieseler's 5 modification of the Urevangelium theory, position 
which substituted an oral Gospel, grown stereotyped ° fthe „ 
by use, for Eichhorn's primitive source, had proved of in Gospel 
small service. As little resulted from that of Paulus, criticism - 
Schleiermacher, Lachmann, and H. Ewald, breaking 

1 Hist.-krit. Einleitung, 1843, 8 1868, as N. T. Isagogik. 

2 Die h. Schrift d. N. T., 1862-86. 

8 Johanneische Ursprung d. vierten Evang., 1874, 2 1876 
(Engl, transl.). 

* Gesch. d. VolTces Israel, Bd. V, 1855, 3 1867 ; VI, 1858, 
8 1868; VII, 1859, 2 1869 (Engl, transl.). 

5 Hist.-krit. Versuch uber d. Entstehung u. d. fruhesten 
Schicksale d. Evang., 1818. 



20 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

up the proto-Gospel into groups of narratives. Apolo- 
gists persistently seek to magnify the Logia as nearly as 
possible to the dimensions of the present Matthew, and 
thus make of this a proto-gospel ; but critics will not be- 
lieve in the traceless disappearance of a primitive Apos- 
tolic source of the assumed proportions, any more than 
they can conceive a process for its concoction. Such a 
thing might well provoke the sweeping scepticism of 
Strauss. This, however, was met by Weisse^nd Wilke 2 
with an effective documentary criticism, which gave to 
our canonical Mark its true position as a fundamental 
source, till Holtzmann, 3 sifting down the multitude 
of discussions of the problem, and rejecting tendency 
theories, laid down as the basis of future study the 
present so-called two-document theory. This recog- 
nises in Mark and the Logia the chief elements which, 
in different combination and with the addition of some 
further material, have been used in the compilation of 
our Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 
And in the The same mastery of critical method was applied 

other books, D y Holtzmann to the chief problems of Pauline liter- 
ature, 4 the comprehensive results of criticism being 
summed up finally in his Introduction already men- 
tioned. Here he places the composition of Mark 
about 70, Matthew and Luke 90-94 a.d. The names 
Matthew and Luke he regards as derived from the 
employment in the one case of the Logia, in the other 
— in Acts — of the journal of Paul's companion. Of 
the Johannine writings only Revelation might perhaps 
be attributed to the Apostle as a compilation ca. 95 
a.d. of older "prophecies." The Gospel and Epistles 

1 Die evang. Oesch. kritisch u. philosophisch behandelt, 1838. 

2 Der Urevangelist, etc., 1838. 
8 Die synopt. Evang. ,1863. 

4 Kritik der Eph. und Colosserbriefe, 1872, and Die Pastoral- 
briefe, 1880. 



CBITICISM VS. TRADITION 21 

of John are slightly later. Of the Pauline Epistles 
only 2 Thessalonians is wholly rejected. Colossians and 
Ephesians are different elaborations of a single Paul- 
ine original. Even the Pastoral Epistles contain Paul- 
ine elements, especially 2 Timothy, adapted ca. 100 
to combat incipient Gnosticism. Hebrews is, of course, 
deutero-Pauline, 1 Peter is dated under Trajan on ac- 
count of the type of persecution presupposed. The 
other Catholic Epistles are dated later still. 

The position of Julicher is still more moderate. 
He admits 2 Thessalonians and Colossians, while still 
doubtful of Ephesians, and otherwise follows the more 
conservative alternatives of Holtzmann. 

But from this significant agreement in matters of Radicalism. 
Introduction of Ritschlians with the followers of Baur, 
we must turn to the handful of Dutch and Swiss 
scholars who have lately sought to atone for what 
they seem to regard as an abandonment of the Tubin- 
gen holy war against tradition by a tendency criti- 
cism so extreme as to undermine the very basis of 
criticism itself. Following the preposterous attempt 
of Pier son and Naber l in Holland to throw doubt upon 
the historicity of the person of Jesus, as well as the 
authenticity of all the Pauline Epistles, A. D. Loman 2 
undertook to galvanise the long defunct ultra-radi- 
calism of Bruno Bauer 3 (f 1882) by an inversion of the 
Tubingen axiom. The journal of Paul's companion 
in Acts 16 : 10-18, 20 : 5-17, 21 : 1-18, etc., is made the 
only contemporary writing of the New Testament. 

1 Verisimilia: Laceram conditionem N. T. exemplis illu- 
strarunt et ab origine repetierunt A. Pierson et S. A. Naber, 1886. 
Wittily refuted by the O. T. critic A. Kuenen in a review in the 
Th. Tijdschr., entitled "Verisimilia?" 

2 " Qusestiones PaulinaB," Th. Tijds., 1882, 1883, 1886. 
s Krit. d. Evang., 1850-52; Apostelgesch., 1850; Krit. d. 

Paul. Briefe, 1850-52, Christus u. d. Caesaren, 1877. 



22 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

The discrepancies between this and Paul prove the 
unauthenticity of all the Epistles in their present 
form, and the mythical character of the Gospel story ! 
The arguments advanced have most force in the less 
extravagant writings of R. Steck 1 and D. Vblter, who 
reject, however, only certain parts of the greater 
Epistles. 2 These views have met such thorough-going 
refutation, particularly at the hands of Holsten 3 and 
Clemen, 4 not to speak of conservatives like Gloel s and 
Zahn, 6 and liberals like Holtzmann, 7 that we are con- 
strained to join the great majority of scholars of whom 
a present leader of the school complains that they 
treat the theory as unworthy of serious consideration. 8 
Criticism in It is to be regretted that on the outskirts of the 
ot er an s. arena ^ w h ere criticism encounters a more solidly 
entrenched traditionalism than in Germany, extreme 
views are most in evidence. Eew, indeed, are the gen- 
uine contributions to the simple unpolemic progress 
of the science from Dutch, French, or English scholars. 
The anti-supernaturalism of Renan continues in France 
to give undue importance to questions of historical 
criticism, making the cautious liberalism of Sabatier 9 
exceptional, and setting the more radical criticism of 
the two Eevilles, d' Eichthal, and Havet 10 in mutually 

1 Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht, etc., 1888. 

2 Komposition d. Paul. Hauptbriefe, I, 1890. 
8 Six arts, in Prot. Kirchenztg, 1888. 

4 Einheitlichkeit d. Paul. Briefe, 1894. 
6 Jungste Eritik d. Gal., 1890. 

6 Einleitung, § 9, 1898. 

7 Einleitung, Kp. V, 11, 1892. 

8 Van Manen, Paulus I und II, 1891. The complaint is made 
mainly as to English scholars in Expos. Times, September, 1898. 

9 Essai sur les Sources de la Vie de Jesus, les trois premiers 
Evangiles et le quatrieme, 1866 ; Vapotre Paul, 2 1891 (Engl. 
1896), and Apocalypse de St. Jean, 1888. 

10 See under Synoptic Gospels. 



CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 23 

injurious opposition to the scholarly but slowly pro- 
gressive conservatism of the veteran Godet. 1 

English scholarship, too, has either lacked indepen- English 
dent productive power, or been preoccupied by polemic criticism - 
interest. In special departments Conybeare and How- 
son, 2 Lightfoot, Ezra Abbot, 3 and others have made 
contributions fully abreast of German scholarship; 
but general Introductions of independent value are 
lacking. The polemic of S. Davidson, 4 reproducing 
extreme Tubingen radicalism, provoked from G. 
Salmon 5 a learned and brilliant, but equally polemic, 
reply from the opposite extreme ; while popular 
Introductions, like those of J. E. Lumby, 6 M. Dods, 7 
and even the voluminous productions of J. E. Gloag 8 
do little more than restate tradition. American his- 
torical criticism has its Weizsacker in A. C. McGif- 
fert, 9 reversing many of the conclusions, though not 
lowering the scholarly standard of his predecessor, 10 

1 Introd. au N. T., 1892, 1898 (Engl, transl. of Vol. I, 1894). 

2 Life and Epistles of St. Paid. Latest of the many editions, 
1894. 

8 See the Commentaries of the former on the Pauline Epistles 
and the Essays in reply to '• Supernatural Eeligion" on the 
authorship of the fourth Gospel, reprinted with that of Ezra 
Abbot on the external evidence, in The Fourth Gospel, 
Abbot, Peabody, and Lightfoot, 1891. 

* An Introd. to the Study of the N. T., 2 vols., 1868, 3 1894. 
The earlier work (3 vols., 1848-51) was conservative. 

6 A Historical Introd. to the Study of the Books of the 
N. T., 1894. 

6 A Popular Introd. to the N. T., 1883. 

7 Introd. to the N. T., 1889. 

8 Introd. to the Pauline Epistles, 1874. To the Catholic 
Epistles, 1887. To the Johannine Writings, 1891. To the 
Synoptic Gospels, 1895. 

9 History of the Apostolic Age, 1897. 

10 Ph. Schaff, author of Apostolic Christianity (Part I of his 
History of the Christian Church) 1882, 5 1890. 



24 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

but it rests with, the forthcoming work of S. D. F. 

Salniond 1 to determine whether English Introductions 

shall transcend the level of apologetics by abiding 

results independently achieved. 
Conserva- But we should do injustice to the line of conserva- 

tism. tiy e scholars if we failed to recognise the splendid 

scholarship and industry of German critics such as 

B. Weiss 2 and Theo. Zahn, 3 whom one hesitates to 
class as apologetic, so genuine is the purpose, espe- 
cially of the former, to be free from traditional bias. 
Such critical research as Weiss's into the origin and 
sources of the Synoptic writings, 4 proves that schol- 
arly conservatism has ceased to play into the hands 
of the sceptical historical critic by disdaining scru- 
tiny of the documents, and advances Introduction by 
showing certain weaknesses of the two-document the- 
ory. Something there is also of judicial reserve in 
the treatment of 2 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles, 
though it is hard to believe a really unbiassed writer 
could make 1 Peter the earliest of New Testament 
writings. 5 Even Zahn, "prince of conservative schol- 
ars," while all his magnificent wealth of learning 
appears enlisted in behalf of the authenticity and 
integrity of every canonical book, knows no method 
but the universal method of pure scientific criticism. 
That he uses it as a master, none will deny ; and occa- 
sionally, as when he explains the Pauline character 
of 1 Peter, by transferring an important share in the 

1 To appear in the International Series edited by himself and 

C. A. Briggs. 

2 Einleitung i. d. N T., 1886 (Engl, transl.), »1897. 
8 Einleitung i. d. N. T., 2 vols., 1897, 1898. 

4 Marcus Evangelium, 1872, and Matthcetis Evang., 1876. See 
also the Introd., § 50, on the Sources of the Acts. 

6 The present views of Weiss on the Pauline Epistles are 
given in an article in Am. Journ. of Theol., April, 1897. 



CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 25 

authorship to Silvanus, 1 he surprises us by the simi- 
larity of his results to those of Semler and Eichhorn. 
But the Aramaic Matthew, which Weiss had already 
expanded into a biography, in Zahn becomes in- 
credibly similar to our Matthew. From this, written 
61-66 a.d. and Mark, Luke, who writes his double 
work 70-75 a.d., has drawn. 

With all these differences of judgment, there is Agreement 
nevertheless to-day but one science of Introduction, °nmethod° 1S 
one method of literary and historical criticism. The and scope, 
perfect balance of evidence in detailed results remains 
for him who shall be able to join to the amplest schol- 
arship an impartiality of judgment absolute not only 
in intention, but in fact. 2 

i Op.cit., Vol. II, p. 30. 

2 Excellent reviews in English of the history of Introduction, 
including full bibliography, will be found in the Introductions 
by B. Weiss and Godet ; also much of the outline of Holtz- 
mann's review and bibliography in the Student's N. T. Hand- 
book, by M. K. Vincent, 1893, pp. 48-112. The History of 
Criticism, including much of Introduction, is treated in the 
companion volume of this series by Professor Nash. The 
Histories of the Apostolic Age, by Weizsacker and McGiffert, 
are substantially Introductions. 



CHAPTEE II 

GROWTH OF TRADITION AND FORMATION OF THE 

CANON 

Writings not altogether ineffective soon impress 

external their mark upon contemporary literature. So of the 
evidence 

New Testament books. At first we can only guess at 

their existence from more or less doubtful traces in 
other writers of familiarity with their special language 
or ideas. Later on quotations are made, here and there 
explicitly and by name, and at last they are referred 
to as peculiarly authoritative, and this authority is de- 
fended by references to their Apostolic origin. Both 
kinds of use, acknowledged and unacknowledged, are 
designated " external evidence," though it is evident 
that mere employment can prove nothing as to author- 
ship but only as to date, and even this on condition that 
real literary dependence can be shown, and that the 
evidence of priority be not ambiguous. All kinds of 
external evidence are wont to be comprehensively and 
somewhat confusedly treated under the title History of 
the Canon. 1 We are not now concerned to prove how far 
back the existence of the various New Testament books 
can be traced by the doubly doubtful evidence of " ech- 
oes " and " influences," often cited, even when acknow- 
ledged, in inverse directions ; but with the much less 
obscure process by which the Church begins first to 

1 See, e.g. "Westcott, Hist, of the Canon of the N. T., 6 1889, 
and Th. Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, 1888-92. 



FORMATION OF THE CANON 



27 



manifest its knowledge of certain writings as Apostolic, 
and ultimately to recognise and defend a group of such 
as possessing special authority ; i.e. the segregation 
of a Canon and growth of a tradition. This process 
had reached a finality with regard to nearly all the 
important writings of the New Testament by 200 a.d. ; 
the later disputes, extending through centuries, as to 
the delimitation of the list, i.e. the question just which, 
if any, of the minor group of "disputed books." already 
referred to 1 should be included, we need not consider. 
The practice of the early Fathers enables us to date 
with tolerable definiteness the stages of the process 
by which New Testament writings came gradually to 
be raised to the authority of " sacred Scripture " on a 
level with that which the Old Testament had enjoyed 
from the start. 

Down to the second Jewish war (135 a.d.) the testi- 
mony of the Apostolic Fathers is negative but conclu- 
sive. Nowhere is it more fully admitted than by B. 
Weiss in § 5 of his Introduction, that for this early 
age there is no New Testament sacred literature, no 
Canon, no authoritative standard not recognised by the 
Synagogue as well, save the authoritative teaching of 
Jesus, and that not as written in specially selected 
books, but a living tradition, expounded by the Apos- 
tles and their official successors in the churches. 

For New Testament writers and Apostolic Fathers 
alike " Scripture " means simply the Old Testament, 
with considerable latitude in the inclusion of apocry- 
phal material. 2 To both this is " the word of God " 

ip.7. 

2 Cf. the use of Wisdom by Paul, Heb., and Clem. Rom. ; 
Apoc. of Elias in 1 Cor. 2:9 (so Origen) and Eph. 5 : 14 (so 
Epiphanius) ; Ps.-Fhilo in Mk. 9 : 13 ; unknown writings in 
Lk. 11 : 49, Jn. 7 : 38 ; Enoch in Jd. 14 ; Eldat and Modad in 
Clem. Rom., 2d Clem, and Hermas, etc. 



The three- 
fold source 
of authority 
in the primi- 
tive Church. 



"Scripture" 
in the post- 
Apostolic 



28 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

" inspired of the Holy Ghost," " oracles of God " 
that " cannot be broken," " oracles of the teaching of 
God . . . which are true, which were given through 
the Holy Ghost, wherein nothing unrighteous or coun- 
terfeit is written," 1 precisely as to the rabbis from 
whom through Paul and the Fathers the Church has 
taken over its doctrine of inspiration. The difference 
between Synagogue and Church is simply that whereas 
the former defers authoritative interpretation to the 
coming of the " Prophet like unto Moses " who " will 
tell them all things," 2 the latter rejoices in the posses- 
sion not only of the tradition of that complete and 
perfect interpretation, but of a present " unction from 
the Holy One" giving absolute understanding of all 
things (1 Cor. 2 : 6-16, 1 Jn. 2 : 20, 27, 5 : 20). The 
Church has thus a "threefold source of divine author- 
ity." It is to " remember (i) the words which were 
spoken before by the holy prophets; (ii) the com- 
mandment of the Lord and Saviour through the 
Apostles" (2 Pet. 3:2, cf. Heb. 1:1 f., 2:3), and 
last but by no means least it has (iii) " the prophetic 
Spirit." 3 Por down to the end of this period the 
Revelation, claim of present inspiration is anything but a stere- 
otyped form. Inspiration voices itself officially in the 
authoritative utterances of the Church (Acts 15 : 28 ; cf . 
Clement of Eome, 93-96 a.d., 4 "obey ... the things 

i Clem. Rom., 45 : 1, 53 : 1, 62 : 3. 

2 Jn. 4 : 25, cf. Un. 5 : 20. 

3 Just. M. Apol. I, 6 (150 a.d.) : "We [Christians] rever- 
ence and bow to God, and to the Son who came from him and 
taught us these things, and to the prophetic Spirit." Cf. 1 : 13, 
23 and Dial. 48, 139. Hegesippus (175 a.d.) appeals to "the 
Law, the Prophets and the Lord " (Eus. Hist., 4 : 22, 23). See 
further the passages cited by Holtzmann, Einleitung, 3 p. 106 f. 

4 The dates for the Ap. Fathers are taken from Harnack's 
Chronologie, 1897, p. 718 f. They agree substantially with 
Lightfoot. Holtzmann dates Clem. Rom., 93-125 a.d.; Von 



FORMATION OF THE CANON 29 

written by us through, the Holy Spirit" the words 
spoken by Him [God] through us "), individually in 
the " visions and revelations " of " prophets " (1 Cor. 
14 : 29-32, 2 Cor. 12 : 1, Acts 15 : 32, 16 : 6, 7, 20 : 23, 
21 : 4, 9-11, Eevelation passim) ; for the conviction 
of early Fathers of their own possession of such gifts 
of the Spirit is not only every whit as vivid as that of 
Paul and John, but is expressly acknowledged by the 
Church. 1 

If even " Scripture " in the New Testament and the 
early Fathers proves to have been a far less exclusive 
term than with us, or even with the Roman Church, 
we need not be surprised that the " commandment of 
the Lord through the Apostles " was by no means 
limited to a fixed group of writings, whereas the 
limitation of " the prophetic Spirit " to documents at 
all was a difficult matter, still more that of reducing 
the three most cherished productions of this kind — 
Eevelation, Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter — to 
a single canonical representative. 

It never occurs to the early Fathers to say whence Gospel, 
they obtain their references to sayings and doings of 
the Lord. Generally the language most nearly ap- 

Soden, 93-120. The letters of Ign. and Polyc. are dated by 
Holtzniann and Hilgenfeld after 150 ; but see Zahn, Gesch. d. 
Kan., and Kriiger, Hist, of Early Christian Lit., 1897. The 
passages cited are from Clem. Rom., 59 and 63. 

i With Gal. 1 : 11, 12, cf. Ign. ad Philad. 7 (110-117 a.d.). 
With Rev. 22 : 6-9, cf. Hermas, Mand. 3 : 1, 2, 4, (140 a.d.). It 
is with the greatest reluctance that I am constrained to exclude 
the citation of these passages in full, refuting as they do the 
baseless notion of a sudden cessation of the consciousness of 
revelation. The judgment of the early Church appears in At5. 
11 : 7 (120-150 a.d.). "Any prophet speaking in the Spirit 
ye shall not try, neither discern (cf. 1 Cor. 12 : 10, 14 : 29) for 
every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven" 
(cf. Matt. 12:32). 



30 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

proximates Matthew, less frequently Luke and Mark, 
sometimes uncanonical Gospels. The readers are ex- 
pected to know by common tradition whether the state- 
ments are authentic or not. Ignatius (110-117 a.d.) 
cites the story of Luke 24 : 36^9 in the version of 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 1 Papias (145- 
160 a.d.) in his youth (110-120 ?) preferred oral tradi- 
tion to any written record for the " interpretation of the 
oracles of the Lord," though he fortunately gives the 
Earliest tradition regarding the origin of both Matthew and 
references. Mark, reporting their defects as well as their merits. 
Justin Martyr, writing ca. 155 a.d. for heathen readers, 
explains that the sources relied on by himself, and 
read for edification in the churches are " memorabilia 
of the Lord called Gospels," " written by Apostles and 
their followers," one of them "memorabilia of Peter." 
Prom his quotations, free as they are, it is easy to 
recognise our Matthew, Mark, and Luke. To-day 
it is even admitted to be possible to identify John, 
though Justin's acquaintance with this Gospel was long 
disputed. But Theophilus of Antioch (181-190 a.d.) 
is the first to cite a Gospel by name, quoting John 1 : 1 
as from " John, one of those who were vessels of the 
Spirit." 
Special writ- Not until the multiplication of secondary Gospel 

ingsdis- narratives in the age of Traian 2 and the contempo- 
crimmated. ° J * 

rary advance of a heretical pseudo-tradition by the 

Gnostics 3 could the necessity of citing a recognised 

authority for evangelic tradition be felt. In Apoc- 

1 So Jerome. Origen found the passage in the Kerygma Petri. 
Both are probably right. See Lightf oot, Apost. Fathers, ad loc. 

2 Eus. Hist., 3:37. 

8 Cf. the Pistis Sophia, and the references to the Gospel of 
Basilides, Traditions of Matthias, etc. Cerin thus is said to have 
employed one of the forms of Matt, which excluded the virgin 
birth. 



FOBMATION OF THE CANON 31 

alypse it would seem to have been the extravagant 
claims of Montanism (157 a.d.) for its "prophetic" 
revelations which led to similar limitation. 

Paul himself had directed a restricted reading and Epistle 
circulation of his letters (1 Thess. 5 : 27, Col. 4 : 16). 
These were, of course, frequently cherished and ap- 
pealed to as evidence of Apostolic opinion where 
the oral authority of the officials appointed by the 
Apostles appeared indecisive. In the second century 
churches began the regular public reading of them for 
edification, not at first limiting themselves, however, 
to such as belonged to the Apostolic age. 1 But soon 
arose the theoretical requirement of " apostolicity " 2 
which in the west led even to the exclusion of 
Hebrews. But before the time of such distinctions 
there were exceptional circumstances, as when the 
Church addressed had itself been the recipient of the 
letter, when epistles of Paul are referred to by name. 
There are three instances of this kind in writings of 
the Apostolic age : (i) Clement of Bome (93-96 a.d.) 
writes to the Corinthians : — 

"Take up the epistle 3 of the Messed Paul the Apostle . . . 
Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and 
Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made 
parties." (1 Cor. 1 : 10 ff.) 

1 Thus about 170 a.d. Dionysius of Corinth writes to Soter, 
Bishop of Rome : " To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, 
in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we 
read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the 
former epistle [of the Roman Church] written to us through 
Clement," The writing known as 2d Clement is perhaps the 
letter of Soter referred to. 

2 See Tertullian below (p. 33). 

3 1 Cor. is very widely employed in the earliest period ; no 
trace of 2 Cor. appears till much later ; it appears to be unknown 
to this writer. 



32 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION 

(ii) Ignatius (110-117 a.d.) writes to Ephesus : — 

"Those who are borne by martyrdom to God pass through 
your city ; ye are fellow-initiates in the mysteries (avuixdarai 
Eph. 3 : 3-5) with Paul, the sanctified, the martyred . . . who 
in every letter (Rom. 16 : 5, 1 Cor. 15 : 32, 16 : 8, 19, 2 Cor. 
1 :8 f. and 1 and 2 Tim.) makes mention of you." 

(iii) Polycarp at the same date writes to the Philip- 
pians : — 

' ' The blessed and glorious Paul wrote letters l to you, into 
which if ye look diligently ye can be built up." 

Further on he writes : — 

" Or are we ignorant that the saints shall judge the world as 
Paul teaches (1 Cor. 6:2)? .. . You, among whom the 
blessed Paul laboured, who were his letters (2 Cor. 3:2) in the 
beginning. For he glorieth of you (2 Cor. 8 : 1 ff.) in all those 
churches which alone at that time knew God; for we (of 
Smyrna) knew Him not as yet." 

Gospels and A generation later we have Papias's tradition of the 
eve ation. wr ^j n g S f Matthew and Mark, corroborated and sup- 
plemented by his contemporary, Justin Martyr, to the 
effect that " the memorabilia of the Lord called i gos- 
pels ' were written by Apostles and their compan- 
ions ; " we have also one further statement of Justin 
{Dial. 81): — 

"John, one of the Apostles of Christ, prophesied, in a revela- 
tion made to him, that those who have believed on our Christ 
shall spend a thousand years in Jerusalem " (cf. Rev. 20 : 4). 

140-170 a.d. With these exceptions we have no direct reference 
in Christian ^ n early times to the authorship of the New Testa- 
authority, ment writings. The lifetime of Papias, who in his 



1 Even if our single epistle is composite, as many hold, it is 
not likely that Polycarp knew of more than one. Zahn sug- 
gests that the Macedonian church of Thessalonica and its let- 
ters may be included in thought. 



FORMATION OF TEE CANON 33 

youth preferred " the living and abiding voice," but 
about 145 a.d. himself joined in the endeavour to 
reduce it to writing, covers the momentous change in 
the Church from chief dependence on oral to chief 
dependence on written sources, when the question of 
authorship would begin to have significance. If, then, 
it is disappointing to find, in this period, within which 
the gradually increasing echoes soon enable us to deter- 
mine the existence of nearly all the books, so little 
weight attached to their authorship, it is consoling to 
reflect that there was also no motive for forgery; 
since a Clement of Rome, to whom the sole written 
authority is " Scripture," x may employ far more copi- 
ously the un-Apostolic letter to the Hebrews 2 than even 
that of Paul to the Corinthians, whom he is himself 
addressing. Just a century later Tertullian, a Father of Apostolicity 
the same Latin Church, excuses himself for citing from m 200 A,D * 
Hebrews on the ground that, although not Apostolic, it 
was written by Barnabas, " a companion of Apostles," 
who had been referred to by Paul (1 Cor. 9 : 6), and, in 
his treatise against Marcion, 4 : 2 (200-210 a.d.), lays 
down the following " principles " : — 

"First, that the Evangelic Instrument 3 has Apostles for its 
authors, on whom this charge of publishing the gospel was 

1 Nearly one-fourth of the entire letter, equal in length to 1 
and 2 Cor. combined, is occupied by citations from the 0. T. 
appealed to as divine authority. 

2 Heb. is the model for whole paragraphs of Clem. Rom., but no 
reference whatever is made to it, though forty-seven "echoes " 
have been counted. There are clear traces of familiarity with 
Rom., Eph., 1 Pet., Jas., 1 Tim., and doubtful resemblances to 
others. 

8 Tertullian is the first to divide the Scriptures into an 0. T. 
and N. T., and further divides the N. T. into " instrumenta," 
Evangelicum, Actorum, Pauli, Johanni (Marc. 4:2, 5 : 2, De 
Besur. 38, 40, De Fudic. 19). 
x> 



34 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



imposed by the Lord himself : that if it includes the writings 
of Apostolic men also, still they were not alone, but wrote with 
the help of Apostles, and after the teaching of Apostles." 



First collec- 
tions of 
N. T. writ- 



Marcion's 
N. T. Canon. 



The growth, of this now full-fledged theory of apos- 
tolicity should be a subject for careful study. 

We have seen how Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and 
Polycarp presuppose that, at least, 1 Corinthians, Ephe- 
sians, and Philippians are read by those whom they 
address, and as letters of Paul. Ignatius (110-117 a.d.) 
refers to a whole group (" in every letter"). In 2 Peter 
(135-150 a.d. ?) this collection is to be studied along 
with "the other Scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16). When 
it was formed and how constituted we do not know, 
but relative frequency of employment goes to show 
that Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians were more 
widely circulated than Galatians or Colossians. The 
year 140 a.d., however, is a date of vital significance 
in our history, for it marks the first attempt to frame 
a canon of New Testament Scripture. 

Of Marcion, its author, we have already heard. 
The son of a Christian bishop in Phrygia, an ardent 
disciple of Paul, and a man of unblemished, though 
ascetic morality, he came to Pome ca. 138 a.d., con- 
vinced that a reform was necessary in the Church to 
free it from its continued slavery to Judaism. The 
most important means adopted was the rejection of 
the Old Testament, for which was substituted, in the 
numerous churches founded by him, his own " Gospel " 
and " Apostle." Of the then current practice of read' 
ing from the Gospels, together with the Prophets (Old 
Testament), we know from Justin Martyr. Marcion, 
however, not only removed the Old Testament, but 
excluded all gospels save that of Luke. His " Apos- 
tle" was simply our ten letters of Paul, excluding 
Hebrews and the Pastoral Epistles. Both " Gospel " 



FORMATION OF THE CANON 35 

and " Apostle " were mutilated by arbitrary expurga- 
tion of what Marcion regarded as "Jewish, inter- 
polations." Whether his omission of 1 Timothy, 
2 Timothy, Titus, was for doctrinal or critical reasons, 
or both, is disputed. 1 

The process which outside the Church was thus Ignatius, 
hastened by the repudiation of " Scripture " and eccle- 
siastical authority, was rapidly advancing within the 
pale. For Ignatius the divinely prescribed panacea is 
the Apostolic successiou. Against the inroads of Do- 
cetic heretics in "the churches of Asia" he appeals 
not to Scripture, still less to the Johannine writings, 
though there are indications that he knows them, 2 but 
to the utterance he had himself made by special, 
divine revelation when among them : " I cried with a 
loud voice, with God's own voice, Give ye heed to the 
bishops and the presbytery and deacons." Ignatius, 
however, met opposition from a conservative element 
of the type of Clement of Rome, who disputed his 
interpretations of Scripture, saying : " If I find it not 
in the charters (the Old Testament) I believe it not in 
the Gospel. And when I said to them, It is written, 
they answered me, That is just the question." 3 His 
final answer was, " My charter is Jesus Christ," mean- 
ing the traditional teaching of Jesus. 

The contemporary exhortation of Poly carp to the Polycarp. 
Philippians to read diligently the letters of Paul, 

1 Jerome (Expl. in Epist. ad Ti., IV, p. 407, ed. Benedict) 
declares that Basilides and Marcion rejected Heb. and the 
Pastoral Epp. as un-Pauline. 

2 So even Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann, who, however, date 
the Ignatian letters ca. 160. The traces of N. T. writings are 
very scanty, but include our Matt., 1 Cor., Eph., Rom., 2 Cor., 
Gal., Col., Phil., 1 Thess., Philem., 1 Pet., Jn. (?) Acts (?) in 
order of certainty. 

8 Phiiad. 8 : 2. 



36 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

advice which he certainly had followed himself, 1 illus- 
trates a third tendency, more in the spirit of Greek 
Christianity than the oriental hierocratic ideas of Igna- 
tius, but equally divergent from the simple dependence 
of Clement of Eome on the Old Testament, without 
disparagement of it as in Marcion. New Testament 
writings are not appealed to by Polycarp as having 
the authority of " Scripture " ; but the future is with 
him. There could be no contrast more significant of 
the predestined change, than that between Clement's 
epistle and his. The former barely refers twice to 
teachings of Jesus with the simple formula of Acts 
20 : 35 2 and once to Paul ; the latter is as saturated 
with New Testament phraseology as Clement with the 
Old Testament. 

One other tendency illustrative of the growing con- 
sciousness in the Church, of the need of some further 
written standard of its divine revelation than the Old 
Testament, is found in a writer perhaps contemporary 
The with Marcion, viz. Pseudo-Barnabas (132 a.d.). " Bar- 

standard of na b as » i s arL Alexandrian, representing the fourth of 
Harnack's tendencies. His standard is " Scripture," 
but the interpretation thereof was first revealed by 
Christ. "Barnabas" is indeed the first to refer to 
a brief " logion," preserved in Matthew 22 : 14, as 
" Scripture," 3 but it is extremely doubtful if he was 

1 Polyc. unmistakably employs the language of Matt., Acts, 
Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 2 Thess., 1 Tim., 2 Tim., 
1 Pet. , 1 Jn. ; and has in addition more or less trustworthy 
echoes of Mk., Lk., and 1 Thess. 

2 The one reference (18 : 2) is a free combination of Matt. 
6 : 7, 6 : 14, 7 : 12 with Lk. 6 : 31, 36-38 ; the other (46 : 8) a 
free reproduction of Matt. 26 : 24, 18 : 6. 

3 Another trace or two of Matt, and a few echoes of Rom. and 
Heb. only heighten the contrast of his copious (allegorical) use 
of the O. T., including Enoch and other uncanonical writings, 
with his neglect of the N. T. Even the Two Ways chapters 



FORMATION OF THE CANON 37 

conscious that the saying was of New Testament ori- 
gin, for he sharply divides his epistle into two parts, 
(i) chs. 1-17, an interpretation of the Old Testament in 
the allegorical sense, without which it is to him quite 
as offensive as to Marcion ; for in his view the Jews 
were only led to interpret it literally by the sophistry 
of "an evil angel," (ii) "the new Law of Christ, 
which is free from any yoke of constraint." This he 
presents in chs. 18-21 as "another lesson and teaching," 
giving it not in words of his own, nor in those of any 
New Testament writing, but, as now appears from the 
recent discovery of the Teaching of the Lord through 
the Twelve Apostles, in those of the Tivo Ways, a 
primitive " teaching of baptisms," or catechism for the 
instruction of neophytes in the rudiments of Christian 
morality, similarly incorporated in the "Teaching," 
1-6. 

This document (131-160 a.d.), 1 as its title shows, re- That of the 
gards the teaching of the Lord as supreme authority, ^ lSa M- 
but the significant difference from Clement's simple ex- 
hortation to " remember the words of the Lord Jesus, 
how he said," etc., is that here the direction is to " do as 
ye find it in the Gospel of our Lord," so that a written 
source has taken the place of general tradition, and 
this source is recognisable from the excerpts as our 
Matthew. 2 By "the ways of the Lord" as known 

are devoid of the quotations from the Gospels with which the 
document has been enriched in the Aid. text. 

1 It is dated by Holtzmann in 120-150. Harnack explains 
his unusually late dating as applying to the present form only. 
He regards the Two Ways as possibly even pre-Christian. 

2 Ai5. 15: 4 ; cf. 8 : 2, 11 : 3. No certain trace of Mk. or Jn. 
appears. Matt, is employed seventeen times. In four cases the 
language approaches Lk., but these are in the later portions. 
Oral tradition is probably responsible for the logion At5. 1 : 6. 
There are traces of Eom., 1 Cor., Eph., 1 Thess., 2 Thess., 
1 Pet., 1 Jn., Jd. (?). 



38 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Hermas. 



Emergence 
of the Four 
Gospels. 



through oral and written tradition, even those who 
speak in the Spirit are to be discerned as true or false 
prophets. 1 

In the Shepherd of Hermas (140 a.d., portions from 
twenty to twenty-five years earlier), tediously volumi- 
nous as it is, we look for no written revealed author- 
ity save the Old Testament, because the author, as 
Holtzmann says, regarded his own prophetic author- 
ity as equal to that of any Christian writer. 2 In fact, 
the only Scripture he anywhere quotes as such is 
Eldat and Modad, though he shows unmistakable 
dependence on James, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians, 
and knows the Synoptic tradition, apparently in the 
form of Mark, but with traces of Matthew and Luke. 3 

By 150 a.d. a tendency was already manifesting 
itself to distinguish our four Gospels from the rapidly 
increasing mass of less authentic and often heretical 
material. 4 For the Syrian Church the (written) Gospel 
long continued to be that of Matthew, as it had been 
elsewhere. But there were many and widely differ- 
ing writings which claimed to be " the Gospel accord- 
ing to Matthew," and the Church itself acknowledged 
that the work of the Apostle in its original form was 
no longer in its possession. It is possible that we 



1 11 : 1 ff. 

2 Einleitung 3 , p. 92. For Hermas's idea of prophetic inspir- 
ation, including his own, see the passage above referred to in 
Mand. 11, p. 29. 

8 Hermas's acquaintance with other N. T. writings may be 
shown in order of probability as follows : Heb., 1 Pet., Jn., 
Acts, Rev. In all cases the use is extremely scanty. 

4 The resemblance of Vis. 3 : 13 to Iren. Her. 3 : 11, 8 has 
been used to trace it back even to Hermas. Irenseus doubtless 
does depend on Hernias for his (probably correct) interpreta- 
tion of the four cherubim supporting the throne of Christ as the 
four Elements {(XTOLxela) ; but the further comparison of these 
to the four Gospels is an idea of his own. 



FORMATION OF THE CANON 39 

have still a trace of these early disputes in the Syriac 
manuscript entitled " As to the Star : showing how and 
by what means the Magi knew the Star, and that Joseph 
did not take Mary as his wife." * In its present form 
this is only a worthless legend in support of the per- 
petual virginity of Mary, but, as Hilgenfeld observes, 
it preserves certain dates of remarkable significance. 
The visit of the Magi to Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1-13) 
is declared to have been " in the three hundred and 
eleventh year (Seleucid era = 1 b.c.) in the second 
year of our Redeemer" (cf. Matt. 2:16). The inci- 
dent itself is declared to have been authenticated by 
a council assembled for the purpose in Rome " in 
the year 430 (= 119 a.d.), under the reign of Hadri- 
anus Caesar, in the consulship of Severus and Fulgus, 
and the episcopate of Xystus (Sixtus I), bishop of the 
city of Rome." 2 

The proportionate use in early writers would indi- Their rela- 

cate that Mark and Luke came next in order of author- tlve cur ~ 

rency. 
ity, but at a considerable interval after Matthew ; then, 

after Luke, John; and again at a considerable inter- 
val, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gospel of 
Peter, etc. 

But we are fortunately supplied with a compara- Justin and 
tively full and certainly trustworthy statement of the Pa P ias - 
process from one who himself had lived through the 
change from Clement, with his mere memoriter com- 
binations of any or all sources for the tradition of 

1 Published by W. Wright in Journ. of Sacred Lit., October, 
1866. See Hilgenfeld's article "Das Kanon. Mtev." in Zts. 
f. w. Th., 1895, p. 449. 

2 Other forms than Matt.'s of the story of the Virgin and Star 
were in circulation at this time (cf. Eev. 12 : 1 f., 5 with Ign. 
ad Eph. 19:1-3, and the legend attributed to Africanus). 
An early ecclesiastical decision in Eome may have supported 
the canonical version against the Ebionites and Adoptionists 
who rejected Matt. 1 : 18, 2 : 23. 



40 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

the Lord's teaching, to Justin Martyr, substantially 
limiting himself to " the memoirs written by apostles 
and the companions of apostles," publicly read in 
the churches. The fragment of Papias's Expositions 
of the Oracles of the Lord, recently published by De 
Boor, states that some of those brought to life by 
Jesus " lived until the time of Hadrian," 1 implying a 
date for the work as late as Justin (145-160 a.d.). 

Papias was probably acquainted with our third Gos- 
pel ; for his earlier contemporary, Marcion, a native of 
Papias's own neighbourhood (Hierapolis in Phrygia), 
had given it a position which would seem to imply both 
its previous wide acceptance and traditions connect- 
ing its author with Paul. Moreover, Holtzmann and 
others have pointed out how Papias's preface seems 
written in " obvious imitation of Luke 1:1-4." He 
cannot have been ignorant of our canonical Matthew, 
and it is in the highest degree probable that he knew 
our fourth Gospel as well. This appears from Irenseus's 
citations of the Eeliques of the Elders, which Lightf oot 
and Harnack agree must Jiave been taken from the 
work of Papias, and which embody Johannine mate- 
rial, and from certain resemblances of his style to 
1 John and 3 John, and still more from the explicit 
and wholly trustworthy statement of Eusebius (Hist. 
3 : 39, 16), " The same writer (Papias) uses testimonies 
from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter 
likewise." And yet he cannot have referred to the 

1 If the fragment is really from Papias, it shows dependence 
on his part on the Apology of Quadratus, addressed to Ha- 
drian, which had declared as to the persons healed and raised 
by Jesus that " they were alive after his death for quite a while, 
so that some of them lived even to our day." If Quadratus 
was then an old man his statement might well be true. In the 
Chronicle Eusebius dates his Apology 124-125 a.d., and calls 
him an auditor Apostolorum. 



tradition. 



FORMATION OF THE CANON 41 

origin of either Luke or John, 1 for Eusebius, who 
gives us his testimony as to Matthew and Mark, and 
after searching through his book notes that " he uses 
testimonies from 1 John," was particularly in search 
of two things which he promises to give to his readers : 
(i) evidence of the early use of the then disputed books, 
among which neither 1 Peter nor 1 John are included ; 
(ii) data as to the origin of the undisputed books, par- 
ticularly the Gospels. 2 But Eusebius has not a word 
as to Luke or John from this source. We cannot rea- 
sonably account for this silence in the "preface" of 
Papias's work, wherein he gave his authorities both 
oral and written, if he placed the Gospels of Luke 
and John in the same category with the two which 
he describes and defends as Apostolic and trustworthy. 
Most probably he regarded it as important to give Papias's 
what tradition reported of the two ancient Gospels 
by Palestinian authorities, because these had formed 
the substratum for later writers, whom he might re- 
gard as belonging rather to his own generation, among 
authors of evangelic compendia he had already alluded 
to in general terms. 3 His statement as to his method 
and authorities was as follows : — 

"But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along 
with my interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully, 

1 In spite of the Argumentum to the Gospel of John in a 
late Vatican manuscript : ' ' The Gospel of John was published 
and given to the churches by John while yet alive (Jn. 21 : 23 
f.), as Papias of Hierapolis, a beloved disciple of John (!), relates 
in his five exoteric (sic) books." 

2 Hist. 3 : 3, 3, and 5 : 8, 1. 

3 We must beware of prejudging the question of the author- 
ship of the fourth Gospel ; yet it must be admitted that the 
growing evidence of Papias's acquaintance with it involves the 
serious difficulty of his apparent inability to refer to the direct 
testimony of the Apostle in either oral or written form, though 
Apostolic testimony was the object of his search. 



42 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

and remembered carefully in time past 1 from the elders, guar- 
anteeing its truth. For unlike the many, I did not take pleasure 
in those who have so very much to say, but in those who 
teach the truth ; nor in those who relate alien commandments 
(Gnostic evangelists), but in those who record such as were 
given from the Lord to the Faith, and who are sprung from the 
truth itself (cf. 3 Jn. 12). If, then, any one came who had 
been a follower of the Elders, I would question him about the 
words of the Elders 2 — what (by their report) Andrew or what 
Peter had said, or what had been said by Philip, or by Thomas, 
or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the 
disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the Elder 
John the disciples of these were saying. 3 For I did not think I 
could get so much profit from the contents of books, as from 
the utterances of a living and abiding voice." 

1 The expressions indicate a rather remote past ( 100-120 
a.d. ?), yet not remote enough for Papias to know directly any 
Apostle ; this, Eusebius tells us, he testified himself. 

2 I.e. what the Palestinian Elders — by no means to be con- 
founded with the Apostles, but authorities who could remember 
Apostles, — reported the words of the Apostles to have been. 
Of these " elders," two, Aristion and John, were actual disciples 
of the Apostles, which made their own sayings independently 
worthy of reporting. 

3 For TOVKV read TOVTo). See my article in Journ. of 
Bibl. Lit. 1897. The Apostles were dead ; Aristion and the 
Elder John were still living ; hence the contrast in tense (direv, 
\iyovffiv). But Papias had no direct access even to the latter, 
save through their writings. Aristion he quoted so freely that 
Eusebius takes him to have been directly his hearer. Mk. 16 : 
9-20 is now known to have been taken from the Gospel com- 
pend of a "Presbyter Ariston," probably the same work. The 
Presbyter John is not known as a writer; for though 2 Jn., 
3 Jn., are addressed by "the Presbyter," the name "John" 
appears only in the titles added by scribes on the assumption 
of Apostolic authorship for both Epistles and Gospel. If the 
question is asked, Why does not Papias refer to his contempo- 
rary and near neighbour Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle 
John, for traditions of this kind, rather than to less famous 
men only indirectly accessible to him, our answer must be, 
the inquiries were as to Palestinian tradition, and the title 



FORMATION OF THE CANON 43 

Of a different character to Papias's mind, however, His primi- 
from the " books " which he treated as inferior to oral tlYe gospe s ' 
tradition, must have been at least the two sources as 
to whose origin he took pains to obtain the testimony 
of " the Presbyter " ; for it cannot be supposed that he 
placed more reliance on reports of "what had been 
said by Matthew," than on what he believed to be 
the writing of Matthew himself. The tradition is 
given as follows : — 

"This also the Presbyter (probably John) said: Mark, who 
had been (yev6[j.ei>os, spoken of an ex-official) the interpreter of 
Peter, wrote down accurately, though not, indeed, in order, 
everything that he remembered, whether of things said or things 
done by Christ. 1 Tor he was neither a hearer nor a follower 
of the Lord, but afterwards, as I said, of Peter, who adapted 
his instructions to requirements, and had no design of giving 
a connected account of the Lord's oracles (or ' sayings ' X67WV ; 
other manuscripts have \oytuv). So then Mark made no error 
while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them ; 2 
for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, 
or to set down any false statement therein." 

"Presbyter" as well as the remoteness of Aristion and John 
from Papias goes to show that they were living in Palestine, 
the home of Gospel story. Possibly these are none other than 
Aristo of Pella, author of a Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus 
(ca. 135 a.d.), and John, mentioned seventh among the fifteen 
bishops — more properly Elders — of the Palestinian Church 
before 135 a.d., by Eusebius {Hist. 4 : 5, 3). 

1 What follows may be only Papias's explanation of the tra- 
dition. The i) \ex6ivra 17 irpaxdivra appears to distinguish 
Mk.'s work from Matt.'s which had been a compilation of say- 
ings only (\6yia). Acts 1 : 1 similarly refers to the former 
treatise as a record "both of teachings and doings of Jesus." 

2 The Muratorian fragment (see below) begins : [ali] quibus 
tamen interfuit et ita posuit, spoken of Mk., apparently in 
dependence on this same tradition, but going quite beyond it. 
The meaning is quite as likely to be : In certain enlargements 
made upon other forms of the story (Matt.) Mk. is not to be 
deemed arbitrary, for he is only recording — and that with 
reverential care — what he had heard from Peter. 



44 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Perhaps a little higher up the page, probably on 
authority of the same Presbyter, Papias had written: — 

" So, then, Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew (or 
Aramaic) language, and each one interpreted them as he could." 

The Logia It is here implied that the original work of Mat- 

obsolete, thew was no longer extant or accessible. In Papias's 
day it had already been superseded by our own Greek 
Matthew, for the need of translation, every man for 
himself, no longer existed. But had the translator 
confined himself to simple translation, or had he 
amplified and interpreted after the manner common at 
the time ? 1 Had he reset the simple " sayings " 2 in a 
narrative of the " doings " after the manner of Mark, 
and prefixed to it the story of Jesus' birth and child- 
hood ? Only internal evidence can decide how close 
was the relation of the " Hebrew " writing to the 
Greek. The mere fact that Papias regarded the Logia 
as the original of our Matthew can decide nothing; 
for Jerome, who had translated the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews into both Latin and Greek, and who 
gives us a number of passages showing the wide diver- 
gence of its tradition, also regarded it as " the original 
Hebrew Matthew." Epiphanius regarded the Hebrew 
Gospel used by the Nazarenes, which was not simply 
our Matthew in another language, but a separate Gos- 
pel, differing both from it and from that employed by 
the Ebionites, as "the original Hebrew Matthew." 
We are rather led to infer from Papias's description 
of the Logia as tradition reported the work (avveypd- 
\j/a.To — some manuscripts o-wera£aTo — to. Ao'yia), and 
from the fact that he adopts from oral tradition an 
account of the death of Judas as wholly at variance 

1 As in the Test, of the XII Patriarchs. 

2 Eeferred to hereinafter as the Logia. 



FORMATION OF THE CANON 45 

with Matt. 27 : 3-10 as with Acts 1 : 18, that there 

were elements of his own (our) Matthew which he 

did not regard as having the direct sanction of the 

Apostle. This need not imply that he held views 

like Jerome's or Epiphanius's, though Eusebius found 

" the story of a woman accused of many sins before 

the Lord " (cf . Jn. 7 : 53-8 : 11), which Papias 

related, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Luke His use of 

and John will have been to him among the " books " 1 books. N " T ' 

which like Aristion's he used, but gave no account of, 

esteeming them secondary to the " living and abiding 

voice." Of 1 John and 1 Peter, as already stated, 

we only know that he used them. With regard to 

Revelation, the case is different. Andreas of Caesarea 

(ca. 490) not only quotes Papias " word for word " in 

passages dependent on Revelation, but declares that 

he " bore testimony to its genuineness." A multitude 

of writers, including Eusebius, testify to how great an 

extent both Papias and his successors of the Ephesian 

school were affected by this book. 

Thus between Papias's youth and his old age depend- Growing 
ence on tradition has given way to books, for Papias on 1 " books?" 
himself is then content to write down what he had 
heard from the daughters of Philip the evangelist. 
Justin, his younger contemporary, as we have seen, 
employs our four Gospels as directly or indirectly 
Apostolic. Occasionally he takes up an uncanonical 
tradition, but in all his seventeen or eighteen express 
references to the " Memoirs " he uses our Synoptics, 
while his fifty allusions in the two Apologies (152- 
153 a.d.) and seventy in the Dialogue (155-160 a.d.) 
point to the same authorities. The last serious denials 
have been silenced by modern discovery. The Akhmim 

1 See the passage from Iren. quoted below (p. 50), "Luke 
recorded in a book," etc. 



46 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

fragment of the Gospel of Peter 1 (100-130 a.d.) dis- 
pelled all theories which made this the source of 
Justin's quotations and identified it with his Memoirs 
of Peter (i.e. Mark). It made the preeminence of the 
four yet more apparent by the evidences of dependence 
on these by the Gospel of Peter itself. Serapion of 
Antioch (191-211 a.d.) found indeed this Gospel still 
employed for public reading in a church of his diocese 
(Rhossus), and for a time tolerated, but afterward 
suppressed it as heretical. 

Ciasca's publication of the Diatessaron, 2 or Har- 
mony of the Four Gospels, by Tatian, a pupil of Jus- 
tin (160-170, 172 ? a.d.) forever settled all questions 
as to which four had been thus employed, and showed 
their relative standing. Finally Mrs. Lewis's dis- 
covery of the Sinaitic Syriac, a version of our four 
Gospels of 160-170 a.d., fairly leads us over to the 
history of the text. 
Their But we should beware of the hasty inference that 

authority. even ^ e £ Qur Q 0S p e } s h a( j y e ^ k ecorae a « scriptural " 

authority. Justin has still substantially the same 
standard as Clement of Rome, " Scripture " and the 
" Teaching of the Lord." " We have been commanded 
by Christ himself," he writes, " to obey not the teach- 
ing of men (Matt. 23 : 8-10), but those precepts 
which were proclaimed by the blessed Prophets, and 
taught by himself." 3 Only now the more trustworthy 
record of the teaching is beginning to be differentiated 
as " Apostolic " from the unauthentic. Besides Scrip- 
ture and the Lord's teaching, Justin recognises but a 
single writing which possesses a claim to special 
authority. The Revelation of John, one of the Apostles 

1 See the ed. of H. B. Swete, London, 1893, and Kruger, 
Hist, of Chr. Lit., p. 53. 

2 Engl, by J. H. Hill, Edinb., 1894. 
* Dial., c. 48. 



FOBMATION OF THE CANON 47 

of Christ has the twofold claim of its " prophetic " 
character, and its apostolicity. 1 

With Justin and Tatian we are thus only at the be- irenseus's 
ginning of the road which with Irenseus (174-189 a.d.) SnTtl* ° f 
leads to the exclusive use of Matthew, Mark, Luke, books and 
and John 2 and treatment even of the evangelist's own their Origin, 
language as inspired. 3 But the only writing besides 
these of which even Irenaeus is concerned to give the 
tradition is Revelation, which he not only declares 
authentic on the authority of "those who saw John 
face to face," but tells us that "the revelation was 
seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, 
toward the end of the reign of Domitian." Incident- 
ally he quotes 1 Jn. 2 : 18 as from " the Epistle " 4 
of John the author of the Gospel, and is the first to 
connect 1 Peter with the Apostle, quoting it with the 
formula "Peter says," 5 but he reserves the title 
" Scripture " for Hernias, 6 which as " prophetic " is 
entitled to rank with the Evangelic Word and the 
Revelation of John. His tradition as to the Gospels 
we must cite in full : — 

" Matthew then published his Gospel among the Hebrews in 
their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and 

1 There are a few traces of acquaintance with all the Pauline 
Epistles except Phil., Philem., and the Pastoral Epistles, but 
Justin does not so much as mention the name of Paul, much 
less can we suppose he would treat letters, even those of 
Apostles, as "Scripture." 

2 In Her. 3 : 11, 8 he resorts to extraordinary analogies to 
show that there must in the nature of the case be four Gospels 
and only four. 

8 Her. 3 : 16, 2 has Spiritus Sanctus per Matthseum ait, quot- 
ing Matt. 1 : 18. 

4 In 3 : 16, 8 and 1 : 16, 3 he also quotes 2 Jn. without dis- 
tinguishing it from 1 Jn. 

5 In 4 : 16, 5 and 5 : 7,2. 

6 4 : 20, 2 : cf. Eus. Hist. 6 : 8, 7. 



48 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

founding the Church in Rome (60-67 a.d.). 1 After their decease 
Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to 
us in writing those things which Peter had preached ; and Luke 
the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul 
had declared. Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who 
also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel while staying 
at Ephesus in Asia." 2 

Clement of Eusebius, mindful of his " promise," reports to us 
Alexandria. finally the account f a n the New Testament writings 
as preserved in a work, now lost, of Tertullian's 
great contemporary, Clement of Alexandria. " Clem- 
ent gave," he says, "in the Hypotyposes, abridged 
accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the 
disputed books — I refer to Jude and the other Catho- 
lic epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse 
of Peter." But all he finds worthy of citation here 
is a rather forlorn attempt of Clement's to explain 
Hebrews as written by Paul in Hebrew and trans- 
lated by Luke. Paul refrained from signing his name 
out of consideration for the Hebrews. We understand 
the motive of this plea when we remember Tertullian's 
apology for citing this epistle to the Hebrews "from 
Barnabas " in spite of its non-apostolic origin. Else- 
where in the Hypotyposes Clement gave "the tradi- 
tion of the earliest presbyters " 3 as to the order of the 
Gospels : — 

" The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were writ- 
ten first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. 

1 Irenseus makes the same effort as Tertullian to trace the 
Gospels to the Apostles themselves, but is unable to say that 
Matthew translated his own Gospel into Greek. 

2 Her. 3:1, 1. In 3 : 11, 1 he tells us that John's Gospel 
was written "to correct the errors of Cerinthus." 

3 In the Stromata 1 : 1 these "elders" are described as liv- 
ing in Ionia, Italy, Ccele-Syria, Egypt, Palestine, and the 
East. 



FORMATION OF THE CANON 49 

As Peter had preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared 
the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that 
Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered 
his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the 
Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter 
learned of this he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. 1 
But last of all John, perceiving that the external facts had been 
made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and in- 
spired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." 2 

We see that the tradition as to the Gospels was Tradition in 
already stereotyped. As to the thirteen Pauline let- to° tl ^ D ' as 
ters, only a few heretics like Marcion rejected the epistles. 
Pastoral Epistles, while the growing tendency to make 
apostolicity the test of inspiration, cooperated with 
the general practice of public reading in the churches 
rapidly to raise them to the level of inspired Scrip- 
ture, along with Gospels and Apocalypses. A third 
" instrumentum," to adopt Tertullian's word, was nec- 
essary to accommodate the second part of Luke's 
" book," and still a fourth for 1 Peter and 1 John ; for 
the latter, while making no direct claim like 1 Peter 
to apostolicity, was as inseparable logically from the 
fourth Gospel as Acts from Luke. 

Por writings like Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 John, 
3 John (superscribed "the Elder") which made no 
direct claim to apostolicity, and 2 Peter, whose claims 
though explicit, were very ill supported, the changed 
requirements created difficulties. Hebrews had such 
weighty support in ancient use that pretexts were 
found in the East, as in the case of the writings of 

1 If Peter's attitude is taken toward the act of Mark, as the 
order suggests, and not toward the proposal only, it is both 
inexplicable in itself and flatly contradicts Irenseus. The 
qualifications of Mark here specified suggest that in its original 
form the tradition agreed with Irenaeus and the yev6fx.evos of 
Papias, inverting the order of the last two sentences. 

a Eus. Hist. 6 : 14, 1, 5, 6. 



50 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Luke, for smuggling it in at the end of the Instrumen- 
tum Pauli. In the West it was reluctantly excluded. 
James was known anciently, but only locally ; when 
accepted, its author was identified with the Apostle, 
the son of Alphseus. The like may be said of Jude. 
Affinity with 1 John was the plea of 2 John and 3 
John; for real tradition was silent. 
The Canon Tradition, legend, and inference from the text are 
j f Muraton. intermingled in the ancient fragment discovered by 
Gospels. Muratori, giving the list of writings in ecclesiastic use 
at Eome toward the close of the second century. It 
will show us, more graphically than description, what 
the Church had then come to regard as the origin and 
content of its New Testament Canon. It begins in 
the midst of a sentence relating to Mark. 

.... in some 1 (?) things, however, he participated, and has 
thus recorded them. 

The third book of the Gospel according to Luke, Luke com- 
piled in his own name from report, the physician whom Paul 
took with him after the ascension of Christ, as it were for a 
travelling companion : however he did not himself see the Lord 
in the flesh, and hence begins his account with the birth of 
John as he was able to trace (matters) up. 2 

Of the fourth of the Gospels (the author is) John, one of 
the disciples. 8 At the instance of his fellow disciples and 
bishops he said, " Fast with me three days and whatever shall 
be revealed to each, let us relate it to one another." The same 
night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John 
should write all in his own name, the rest revising. 4 . . . And 

1 [alQ quibus interfuit. 

2 This and the contemporary notice of Iren. 3: 1, 1 are the 
first direct ascriptions of Lk. and Acts to Luke (cf. Col. 4 : 14, 
Philem. 24, 2 Tim. 4 : 11). Eusebius adds {Hist. 3 : 4, 6), 
doubtless from ancient tradition, that he "was of Antiochian 
parentage." 

8 Original : Quarti evangeliorum Johannes ex decipolis (sic). 
i A further elaboration of the tradition of Clement of Alex- 
andria above cited, probably based on Jn. 21 : 24, and here 



FORMATION OF THE CANON 51 

therefore, although varying ideas may be taught in the several 

books of the Evangelists, there is no difference in that which 

pertains to the faith of believers, since by one sovereign Spirit 

in all are declared all things that relate to the nativity (of 

Jesus), his passion, resurrection, intercourse with his disciples, 

and concerning his twofold advent, the first in humble guise, 

which has taken place, the second splendid with royal power, 

which is yet to be. . . . What wonder, then, if John in his epis- 2. The 

tie also, speaking of his own authorship, so boldly advances Epistle of 

each detail, saying, "What we have seen with our eyes, and Acts of 1 

have heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these Luke. 

things we have written." x For thus he professes himself not 

only an eye-witness, but a hearer, yea, and a writer as well, of 

all the wonders done by the Lord in their order. 

But the Acts of all the Apostles are written in a single book. 
Luke relates them admirably 2 to Theophilus, confining himself 
to such as fell under his own notice, as he plainly shows by the 
omission of all reference either to the martyrdom of Peter or 
the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. 3 . . . 

But the letters of Paul themselves make known to those who 3. The 
would know both what they are, and from what place, on what Epistles of 
occasion they were sent. At considerable length he wrote to a ' 
the Corinthians first, forbidding schismatic divisions, then to 
the Galatians (forbidding) circumcision, and to the Romans 
(expounding) the general tenor of the Scriptures, showing, 
however, that Christ is the essence of their teaching ; to these 
(epistles) we must devote separate discussion ; 4 for the blessed 

perhaps taken from the Acts of John (160 a.d.). Clement and 
Irenseus preserve other and more trustworthy traditions as to 
the old age of John in Ephesus. Polycrates, writing to Victor 
of Rome in 185 a.d., at the age of sixty-five, appeals to "John, 
who was both a martyr (Rev. 1 : 9) and a teacher, who reclined 
upon the bosom of the Lord (Jn. 13 : 23), and being a priest 
wore the wtrakov, who fell asleep at Ephesus." Polycarp, Me- 
lito, and others were held to have been John's personal disciples. 
i 1 Jn. 1 : 1. 

2 Optime Theophilo ; a misrendering of Kpdrtare Qe6<ptXe ? 

3 Corrupt text. The rendering is approximate. 

* An indication that the work from which the Fragment is 
an extract went on to expound the N. T. Lightfoot conjectures 
that it was taken from a work of Hippolytus. 



52 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predeces- 
sor 1 John, wrote by name to seven churches only in this 
order : First to the Corinthians, second to the Ephesians, third 
to the Philippians, fourth to the Colossians, fifth to the Gala- 
tians, sixth to the Thessalonians, seventh to the Romans. True, 
he wrote twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their 
correction, but he shows thereby 2 the unity of the universal 
church ; for John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to 
seven churches only, yet speaks to all. 3 He also writes one to 
Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy, out of personal 
regard and affection, but these too are hallowed in the respect 
of the Catholic Church for the arrangement of ecclesiastical 
discipline. Moreover there is in circulation an Epistle to the 
Laodiceans, 4 another to the Alexandrians forged under the 
name of Paul, looking toward the heresy of Marcion, 5 and sev- 
eral others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church ; 
for gall should not be mixed with honey. However, the 
Epistle of Jude, and two of John the above named are received 
among Catholics. Also the Book of Wisdom written by the 
friends of Solomon in his honour. 6 
Apoca- We receive, moreover, the Apocalypse of John and Peter 7 
lypses. , 

i Gal. 1 : 17. An allusion to Rev. 1-3. 
2 In the number seven. 3 Rev. 2 : 7, 11, 17, etc. 

* Probably only Marcion's mutilated form of Eph. , which had 
this title. 

5 Unknown. 

6 The author's Instrumentum Evangelicum included a refer- 
ence to 1 Jn., and doubtless (in connection with Mk.) to 1 Pet. 
His Instrumentum Actorum followed. His Apostolicon con- 
sisted of an Instrumentum Pauli in two parts, the limits of 
the second being defended against dispute. This was followed 
by a group of writings of secondary (non-apostolic) authority, 
like the 0. T. apocryphon Wisdom (cf. Eus. Hist. 5 : 8, 6 : 13). 
This included Jd. ,2 Jn. , 3 Jn. 2 Pet. seems to be unknown, 
Jas. either unknown or ignored. Heb. cannot have been unknown 
and there are no signs of accidental mutilation. It was omitted 
beyond doubt because known to be unapostolic. " Prophecy " 
is the last group of the Canon, and only the " Apostolic " proph- 
ecies are admitted. 

7 120-140 a.d. See the ed. of Robinson and James from 
the Akhmim fragment, London, 1892, and Kriiger, op. cit., p. 36. 



FORMATION OF THE CANON 53 

only, though some of our body will not have the latter read in 
the Church. The Shepherd indeed was written quite recently 
in our own times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his 
brother Pius occupied the seat of Bishop of the Church of 
Rome (130-155 a.d.) 1 ; wherefore the private reading of it is 
indeed commendable, but it can never be publicly read to the 
people in the Church whether among the Prophets ... or 
among the Apostles. 

We receive nothing whatever of the Arsinoite, or Valentinus, 
or of Mitias (?) . . . Who also were the compilers of the new 
Book of Psalms (?) for Marcion, together with Basilides . . . 2 

We thus reach the New Testament of Tertullian 
and Origen, a Canon of sacred writings not yet fully 
determined as to its outer limit, but with an already 
stereotyped tradition as to the origin and nature of 
those received by us except James and 2 Peter. The 
tradition is partly historical, partly inferential and 
theoretical, with a liberal element of legend. It is 
for the modern critic to analyse and interpret it. 3 

1 An indication of the author's own date. Like Tertullian 
he objects to Hermas and makes it as "recent" as possible. 

2 The concluding paragraph, relating to various Gnostic 
writings is corrupt and mutilated. 

3 Besides the works above cited see Sanday, The Gospels in 
the Second Century, 1876 and Reuss, Eistoire du Canon des 
Saintes Ventures dans VFJglise Chretienne, 2 1863, Engl. 1884, 
and in particular Euseb. Hist. 3 : 3, 23-25, 36-39, 5 : 8, 6 : 14, 
25. Popular and interesting is E. H. Hall's Pap>ias and his Con- 
temporaries, 1899, and D. S. Muzzey's Bise of the New Testa- 
ment, 1900. 



PART II 
THE PAULINE EPISTLES 



CHAPTER III 

THE EPISTLES OF THE FIRST PERIOD : THE LETTER TO 
THE GALATIANS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THES- 
SALONICA 

Tradition on Ancient tradition is unanimous in placing first 
of e thePauf- chronologically the Epistles of Paul, both as individual 
ine Epistles, writings and as a collection, though the superior au- 
thority of the Teachings of the Lord soon led to the 
placing of the Gospels first in the Canon. The mere 
fact that the epistles were earliest read in the churches, 
and thus soonest gathered into a collection, of course 
could not suffice to give them precedence over Mar- 
cion's single Gospel, much less at a later time over 
" the sacred quaternion." Sporadic modern attempts to 
find writings earlier than Paul's among the Catholic 
Epistles, 1 or elsewhere in the New Testament, have no 
support in ancient tradition, and are inherently im- 
probable as well as contrary to the indications of the 
text. The Muratorian fragmentist possessed no tradi- 
tion of the origin and occasion of the letters of Paul, 

1 As B. Weiss, explaining the relation of 1 Pet. to Rom. and 
Eph. by dependence on the part of Paul (!), and others who 
apply similar reasoning to Jas. 

64 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 55 

but had already observed that they are self-explana- 
tory on this score; the letters in turn explain the 
rise of a literature of this type in the Church, and 
the process cannot be inverted. The Canon of Marcion 
is proof positive of the collection having contained at 
least the ten letters accepted by him in 138 a.d. and 
earlier. But it is supposable that some portion even 
of this was of unauthentic material, so that in the 
case of 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians, the two against 
which a scientific modern criticism still raises doubts, 
we must weigh both internal and external evidence. 
In the case of all we must look to "the letters 
themselves " to " know both what they are and from 
what place, on what occasion they were sent." 

The literary activity of Paul is separated into two Periods in 
well-marked periods. The great crisis to which he is yf nVs T 
looking forward in Kom. 15 : 25-33, resulted, as we career, 
know from the pen of a companion, in nearly three 
years of relatively close imprisonment, after which, 
though still a captive, his circumstances are changed, 
as well as the dangers that beset his churches, and 
therewith the character of the teaching by which he 
would defend them. The theory of Meyer and others, 
which assigns Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, if 
not Philippians as well, to the captivity of Csesarea 
rather than Eome, rests largely on the false reading 
iv 'E^eo-u in Eph. 1 : 1, and cannot adequately explain 
the Apostle's accessibility nor his confident expec- 
tation of release and promise of a visit, Philem. 22. 
These four, known as Epistles of the Captivity from 
the repeated allusions of the author to his bonds, were 
sent from Rome, three of them on a single occasion. 
The four which, from the time of the Muratorian frag- 
mentist down, have stood apart as the great doctrinal 
epistles, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ro- 
mans, belong to an earlier period, but are only disso- 



56 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

ciated from the perhaps still earlier 1 Thessalonians, 
2 Thessalonians, by the accidental circnrnstance that 
in Thessalonica the difficulties grappled with were of 
a different and less serious character. These six 
might be classed together as the Missionary Epistles. 
Admitted With the unimportant exception of 2 Thessalonians, 
onh^maior no doubt exists to-day among scientific critics regard- 
epistles, ing the authenticity of any one of them, for indeed 
1 Corinthians is referred to in 96 a.d. as written by 
Paul to Corinth, -and this and others of the group can 
be traced even further bant as employed by Hebrews, 
1 Peter, and James. Moreover, the impression of 
vivid feeling, of intense and close relation to objective 
fact, produced by the writings themselves is corrobo- 
rated by the largely contemporary tradition of Acts, 
which shows just such combination of agreement in 
essentials and discrepancy in detail as we expect from 
honest witnesses. 1 

For the circumstances of the Apostle during the 
critical years of his career between the cutting loose 
from his missionary base at Antioch and the carrying 
to Jerusalem of the first fruits of the Gentile churches 
founded by his independent efforts, we must refer to 
the lives of Paul, 2 preeminently to the autobiography 

1 See Paley's Horce Paulines, still the best general statement 
of the agreement. As to the internal evidence it was Baur who 
said of these four : " They bear on themselves so incontestably 
the character of Pauline originality that it is not possible for 
critical doubt to be exercised upon them with any show of 
reason. ' ' 

2 Besides that of Professor Rush Rhees in the present series, 
see those of Baur (Engl, tr.), Conybeare and Howson, Farrar, 
Lewin, Renan, (Engl, tr.), Sabatier, (Engl. tr. 1891), and 
O. Cone, 1898, with articles on Paul in B. D.'s and Enc.'s. 

New archaeological and geographical data of value have been 
contributed by Professor W. M. Ramsay, in the works below 
cited (p. 59, n. 1). 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 57 

prefixed to his first great letter as a defence of his 
independent position. 

There is reason to regard Galatians as written in Galatians 
50 a.d., earliest of all the epistles of Paul which have n. t. 
survived to us ; or, if not, as antedated only a few weeks wntin S- 
or months by 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Nothing in the 
epistle itself gives much indication of the place of writ- 
ing. Zahn infers, however, from 4 : 20, that the place 
was Corinth, because the readers require no explanation 
of Paul's inability to visit them, which could hardly 
have been the case at Antioch or Ephesus, the alterna- 
tive localities. 1 This early date is supported by the 
fact that Paul has but just heard the disheartening 
news which calls forth his mingled denunciation and 
pleading (1 : 6-10, 3 : 1-3, 4 : 19, 20). The time seemed 
to him marvellously short (1 : 6) for the change which 
had come over the Galatian churches since a second 
visit (4:13) he had made them, on which he and a 
companion apparently included in Paul's present cir- 
cle, though not participant in the letter, had warned 
them against the danger (1 : 9). 2 It was not so long 
after the agreement among the Apostles at Jerusalem 
regarding the freedom of Gentile converts from cir- 
cumcision and the Law, and the subsequent disagree- 
ment of Paul with Peter and Barnabas at Antioch, 
regarding the basis of table fellowship between cir- 
cumcised and uncircumcised Christians, but that a 

1 Ramsay, Paul, p. 191, suggests Antioch, on occasion of 
Acts 18 : 23 ; McGiffert, Ap. Age, p. 226 1, Antioch on occasion 
of Gal. 2 : 11, -which is excluded by 4 : 13 rb irpdrepov. Older 
authorities say Ephesus, Acts 19 : 8-10. 

2 Not "I reiterate," but "as we said before, so 7 now 
repeat." Barnabas, therefore, cannot well be meant (cf. 2: 
13). Silas might be (Acts 15 : 40-16 : 6), especially as on Paul's 
first arrival in Corinth he was still in Macedonia (Acts 18 : 5). 
The previous warning by "us" must, therefore, be assigned to 
the visit of Acts 15 : 40-16 : 6. 



58 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Its date and 
occasion. 



The 

churches of 
Galatia 
those of 
Acts 13 
and 14. 



clear and explicit statement of the facts, however 
painful, should seem requisite to Paul. It was long 
enough after these events, related in their true order 
in Galatians c. 2, and somewhat more confusedly in 
Acts c. 15, for Paul's Judaising opponents to have 
distorted and misrepresented them in their endeavour 
to make proselytes of his converts. Indeed, Paul 
doubted if his statement were not already too late 
(4:11). 

All of these data are best accounted for on the sup- 
position that Paul had just completed the great jour- 
ney of evangelisation, which, beginning with a second 
visit to the churches of Southern Galatia and Phrygia 
(Acts 15 : 40-16 : 6), had led him across the Hellespont, 
through Macedonia and Achaia, and now had brought 
him to Corinth (Acts 18 : 1), whence communication 
with the Galatian churches by way of Ephesus would 
be relatively easy. 1 We take this to have been early 
in the spring of 50 a.d. 2 

It is involved in the foregoing that " the churches 
of Galatia " (1 : 2) are the same whose foundation by 
Paul and Barnabas forms so conspicuous an element 
in the story of Acts, leading over directly in cc. 13, 14 
to the great crisis in Jerusalem, c. 15 ; for the once 
dominant " North-Galatian " theory, which intercal- 
ated the evangelisation of Central Asia Minor in Acts 
16 : 6 has no room for a second visit of Paul to Galatia 



1 Zahn thinks that in 1 Thess. 1 : 8 we have actual evidence 
that news of Paul's work in Thessalonica had gone to Timo- 
thy's home in Lystra, and an answer been brought to Paul in 
Corinth. 

2 Our chronology of Paul's career has been fully developed 
in a series of three articles delivered in 1897 to the Expositor, 
of which the first appeared in February, 1898, the other two in 
November and December, 1899. Somewhat similar results 
were obtained independently by C. H. Turner, art. ' ' Chrono- 
logy" in Hastings' Bible Die, 1898, 



TEE EABLIEST EPISTLES 59 

until Acts 18 : 23. It is true that in Acts, Derbe, Lys- 
tra, Iconium, and Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13 : 14, 14 : 
6) are not spoken of as Galatian, or, at most, are in- 
cluded in " the region which is Phrygian and Galatic " 
(rrjv $pvyiav kol TaXaTLKrjv x^P av ) ^ '• ^> vera lect.), and 
there are important authorities who consider it impos- 
sible that Paul should have addressed these converts, 
even if subsequent effort had extended the original 
field northward and eastward (Acts 16 : 6), as " men 
of Galatia" (Gal. 3:!). 1 But Paul's practice differs 
from Luke's in that he habitually employs Roman 
geographical terms rather than popular designations 
such as Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, and by Roman 
terminology these cities had been "Galatian" for 
seventy-five years. Other objections are insignificant 
as against the improbability that the historian of the 
transition of the Gospel from the Jewish to the Gen- 
tile world should have related at great length the 
evangelisation of four cities which had no particular 
connection with the great struggle, while overlooking 
entirely, or mentioning only in passing (Acts 16 : 6), 
that of the great province on whose behalf it was 
fought (Gal. 2 : 5). The indications of the epistle Indications 
are also more favourable to the South Galatian view. e p ^ t f e- 
While its recipients had been generally heathen (4 : 8), 
they were not remote from Jewish influence, and knew 
the Law in its Jewish interpretation (4:21). They 
had been converted by Paul (4 : 12-15, 19) in company 
with Barnabas, as we should judge from the frequent 
references (2 : 1, 9, 13) rather than Silas, whose name 
is not mentioned. They had received Paul "as an angel 

1 The South Galatian theory was maintained hy Kenan, 
Weizsacker, Hausrath, and others against Lightfoot, Lipsius, 
and other eminent authorities. Of late Professor Ramsay has 
given it important new support in his Church in the Soman 
Empire, 1893, and Paul the Traveller, 1896. 



60 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

of God " on this occasion (4 : 14; cf. 1 : 8 and Acts 14 : 
11), though his visit had been caused by an infirmity 
of the flesh, such as might occasion hasty retirement 
from the unhealthy coast to the mountainous interior 
(Acts 13 : 13), but would not naturally lead to toil- 
some journeys over the vast plains of the interior, i.e. 
Northern Galatia, with only here and there a city 
where the Apostle's language would be understood. 1 

It is then the same fickle multitude of Acts 14 : 
8-20 which first received the Apostles as divine and 
next stoned them, of whose fickleness Paul has now 
again to complain; mongrel kinsmen of the same 
Jews whose persecutions drove him out thence (Acts 
13:45, 14:19; cf. Gal. 6:12) are now by indirect 
influence seeking to filch from him the churches for 
whose liberty he suffers all. 
Paul's But the agitators who dogged his footsteps along 

and°their S the wn °l e roa( l from Antioch across Southern Galatia 
propaganda, to Ephesus, Corinth, and finally to Borne, 2 were Chris- 
tian Jews, at least in name (6 : 12 ; 2 Cor. 11 : 13, 22 f., 
Phil. 1 : 15) ; they called themselves " apostles of 
Christ," "ministers of Christ," and laid stress on 
having known him in the flesh, as against Paul's mere 
visions 3 (2 Cor. 5 : 12-17), and hinted that those " who 
were of repute," " pillars " in the mother church, had 
little sympathy with Paul. Their chief purpose was 
to maintain the prerogative of Israel in the Messianic 
kingdom (2 Cor. 11:22, Phil. 3:2) and the means 

1 The language of Central Galatia was still Celtic in 
Jerome's day. 

2 The traditional route of Gnosticism in the person of Simon 
Magus and his followers. 

3 See the anti-Pauline passage Clem. Rom. 17 : 19 (170-200 
a.d.). Paul's vision of Jesus is compared to Balaam's, to whom 
the angel came " as an adversary " (Nu. 22 : 22 f.). His speak- 
ing of Peter as " condemned " (naTe-yvuHxixivos, as in Gal. 2 . 11), 
is contrasted with Jesus' calling him "blessed" (Matt. 16 : 17). 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 61 

to this end was of course to induce Gentile converts 
to pass under the yoke of Mosaism. With this all 
motive for persecution would cease (Gal. 6 : 12). If 
possible, the Gentiles should be persuaded to be cir- 
cumcised, though after the Jerusalem council (Acts 
15 : 1-11, Gal. 2 : 1-10), this was no longer treated 
as essential, but as highly advantageous, on the plea 
that Paul himself still recommended it (Gal. 5 : 11 ; 
cf. Acts 16 : 3). Our epistle shows it to be only rec- 
ommended for "perfection" (3:3). Afterward it 
seems to have been entirely dropped; for, with all 
their pretence of devotion to the Law the Judaisers 
did not scruple to take liberties of their own with 
its requirements (Gal. 6 : 13), and were well aware 
that modifications were indispensable to that religious 
empire over the Gentile world of which they dreamed. 1 
The immediate proximity of the Lycus valley, which Were they 
Paul on his second visit had been dissuaded from Asria" S ? fr ° m 
entering (Acts 16 : 6), and which he subsequently found 
infested with a superstitious type of syncretistic Jew- 
ish-Christian theosophy (Colossians c. 2), suggests this 
as the derivation of the interloping Galatian Judaisers, 
and this has some support in the hint of Gal. 3 : 19, 
4 : 1-3, 8-11, that they commended the Mosaic ritual 
as a proper honour to elemental Beings and angels, 
as was the case at Colossae and Laodicea (Col. 2 : 1, 
8-10, 16-20). 2 

1 The missionary zeal of the Pharisees rivalled that of the 
Church in intensity (Matt. 23 : 15) , and was by no means unready 
to make concessions, in particular as to circumcision (Jos. Ant. 
20 : 2, 4) and the sacrificial system (Mk. 12 : 33). Their rage 
was excited by Paul's abolition of Jewish prerogative. 

2 Por the aroixela toO K6<rfj.ov see Everling, Paulinische Angel- 
ologie und Damo?iologie, 1888, and E. Y. Hincks in Journ. of 
Bibl. Lit. 1896, and cf . Hermas Vis. 3 : 13, 3 with Rev. 4 : 6-9. 
The Preaching of Peter (Clem. Strom. 6 : 17) similarly declared 
the Jewish observance of Sabbaths, new-moons, and feasts to be 



62 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Whence had these interlopers the courage, after the 
signal defeat of their allies in Jerusalem, to renew 
their propaganda with far more vicious attacks on 
Paul's character, authority, and doctrine, and in Cor- 
inth even to display letters of commendation as 
" Apostles " from the older churches (2 Cor. 3:1; cf . 
1 Cor. 9 : 1 f.) ? Our best explanation is Paul's de- 
fence, including his own account of the controversy at 
Antioch, as to which, it would seem, he had hitherto 
observed the same silence as Luke (Acts 15 : 30-40). 
Analysis of The epistle permits the following logical analysis : — 

i. Salutation emphasising Paul's divine call and 
Gospel of a dying Christ, but without the usual 
thanksgiving, 1 : 1-5. 

ii. Thesis: Paul's apostolic commission and anti- 
legalistic doctrine are of divine authority, 1 : 6-10. 

iii. Proof. 1. Historical (with principal stress on 
his apostleship), cc. 1, 2. 

(1) From the circumstances of his conversion and 
independent missionary activity, 1 : 11-24. 

(2) From his successful vindication of both ; a. when 
challenged by " false brethren " at Jerusalem, 2 : 1-10 ; 
o. when endangered at Antioch by the weakness of 
Peter, 2 : 11-21. 

2. Doctrinal (in demonstration of his Gospel), cc. 
3,4. 

(1) From the outpouring of the Spirit, c. 3. a. Cha- 
rismatic endowments were granted upon faith, not 
works. The Law produced curse. The blessing prom- 
ised to Abraham came on abolition of the Law by 
Christ, and to all believers as a single body, 3 : 1-14. 

a " worship of angels and archangels." Cf. Acts 7:42 with 
Just. M. Dial. 18, 19. For syncretistic Jewish-Christian Gnos- 
ticism see Harnack, op. cit., p. 302, and Friedlander, Vorchrist- 
liche Judische Gnosticismus, 1898. 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 63 

b. The Law was subsequent (v. 15), hence subordinate 
(17 f.), indirect and disciplinary (19-22), hence of 
temporary service to the Christ-heir (23-29). 

(2) The condition of the legalist is one of relative 
slavery, 4 : 1-5 : 1. a. The adoption effected in Christ 
was a deliverance from tutelage (1-7), so that resort 
to Mosaism by Gentiles is equivalent to return to 
heathen ceremonial (8-11). Contrast with present 
conditions our tender relations at the time of your 
conversion (12-20). b. The Torah itself indicates 
this slavery of the legalist. If the inheritance were 
by fleshly descent it should go to Ishmael, the slave's 
son. Those who correspond to Isaac, the heir whose 
birth was effected by a promise (cf . Eom. 9 : 6-9), 
are free believers, children of the New Jerusalem, 
4 : 21-5 : 1. 

iv. Practical Inferences, cc. 5, 6. TJiesis : The per- 
suasion to legalism is a nullification of the Gospel, 
without support in my preaching (5 : 11) and uncalled 
for, 5 : 2-12. 

(1) Because our spiritual freedom does not relax but 
heightens morality, 5 : 13-24. 

(2) In particular its law of love calls for brotherly 
conduct (25 f .), and reciprocal service, of the erring by 
the spiritually gifted, and of the teacher by the taught, 
6 : 1-6. 

(3) Never imagine that it annuls the principle of 
retribution, 6 : 6-10. 

v. Autograph recapitulation and farewell. 

Paul defended his apostleship, as we see, by appeal Contents, 
neither to the church in Antioch (Acts 13 : 1-4), as his 
assailants probably hoped he would, nor to the Twelve ; 
but proudly declared his calling to the office to have 
been, like Peter's, (1:12, ovSk eyw, 2:8; cf. Matt. 
16 : 17) direct from God. Independent as he had been, 



64 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



The coinci- 
dent testi- 
mony of 
Luke and 
Paul. 



The Jerusa- 
lem agree- 
ment. 



and consistent from the start in declaring the aboli- 
tion of the dispensation of Mosaic Law with its dis- 
tinction of Jew and Gentile, the Judsean churches 
had at first only gloried in his preaching the faith of 
which he once had made havoc (c. 1). 

Then had come the plots of the "false brethren" 
against Gentile liberty, and his splendid vindication 
at Jerusalem by the very " pillars," James and Cephas 
and John, an agreement unmarred by a single reserva- 
tion, for Paul himself had been as zealous as they in 
inculcating the duty of alms-giving, impossible for 
Jewish Christians to forget, and they endorsed his Gos- 
pel of the uncircumcision absolutely as committed to 
him by the grace of God (2 : 1-10). 

We cannot emphasise too strongly this positive 
statement of both Paul and Luke. Whatever else is 
stated to have occurred on this momentous occasion, 
neither Paul nor the author of Acts has any idea of 
admitting a difference in principle between Paul and 
any one of the three " pillars " as to the complete free- 
dom of the Gentiles from any and all obligations of 
the Mosaic Law as such ; cf . Gal. 2 : 15, 16, with 
Acts 15 : 11. The disagreement, as Paul is most care- 
ful to explain, arose subsequently and purely as a 
matter of practical application of the agreement. 1 

To avoid conflict it had been agreed that Paul should 
go to Gentile territory (of course not to the exclusion 
of individual Jews), and the rest to Jewish (of course 



1 Eamsay's attempt (Paul, 162 ff.) to invert the order of 
Gal. 2 : 1-10 and 11-14, identifying 2 : 1-10 with Acts 11 : 30 s 
12 : 25 is based on a misapprehension of the matter in question, 
viz. "eating with Gentiles," which must necessarily be subse- 
quent to admitting them. Paul is not giving Peter a new idea 
in Gal. 2 : 16, but appealing to his professed principles (Acts 
15 : 11). Another objection to Ramsay's view is the vacillatory 
conduct it would require us to impute to Barnabas. 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 65 

not to the exclusion of individual Gentiles). The Jew 
should not be persuaded to give up the customs of his 
fathers (Acts 21 : 21) nor the Gentile to assume the 
yoke. So they parted, with a hearty right hand of 
fellowship, and Paul and Barnabas returned to Anti- 
och. Soon after came Peter thither, a further evidence 
of sympathy. But now an unforeseen contingency arose. 
In mixed churches like Antioch the agreement was in- 
herently incompatible with fellowship. At the com- 
mon table of the Church, either the Jew must Hellenise 
to the extent of "eating what was set before him, 
asking no questions for conscience sake" (1 Cor. 
10 : 25), thus disregarding the Mosaic prohibition of 
" blood," and " things strangled," and " things offered 
to idols " ; or the Gentile must Judaise to the extent 
of fencing his table from these " pollutions." 

To Paul there was no question as to which alterna- Its two pos- 
tive should be adopted. From the beginning it had p re tatious~ 
been his practice to be " as without the Law to them 
that are without," and as under it, to them that are 
under the Law (1 Cor. 9: 20 f.). Christian considera- 
tion should lead the "strong" brother, who knows 
that " there is nothing unclean in itself," not to dis- 
regard the scruples of the "weak" (Bomans, c. 14). 
If the Jewish Christian was thus protected from 
" compulsion " Paul had a right to expect reciprocally 
that no " compulsion " should be put upon the Gentile 
Christian. He and Peter, therefore, who " knew that 
a man is not justified by the works of the Law" 
(Gal. 2 : 16) should not stand upon their ceremonial 
" cleanness " when among Gentiles, " compelling them 
to Judaise " on pain of separation. To " do in Borne 
as the Bomans do " was Paul's solution of the ques- 
tion how to regulate his diet in the different fields 
(1 Cor. 9 : 20 f.). Nor would Peter, the ardent, 
generous fisherman of Galilee, when left to himself, 



66 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Jewish 



be less liberal than his learned fellow-apostle. Hence 
Peter also " ate with the Gentiles." 

But the "false brethren," though silenced at Jeru- 



umstian sa i em could not leave unchallenged a construction of 

construction ' D 

of the the agreement which, on occasion, would release Jews 

agreement. frQm the obligation of the Law. Hence there soon 
appeared in Antioch, doubtless on their complaint to 
Jerusalem, a second delegation " from James " (Gal. 
2 : 12), implying a second assembly in Jerusalem, 
to which must be referred most of what in Acts 
15 : 19-35 is mistakenly related as of the first (but cf. 
21 : 25). In deference to these demands not only 
Peter, but "the rest of the Jews," including even 
Barnabas, "drew back and separated themselves." 
Paul accused them publicly of " compelling the Gen- 
tiles to Judaise." Does he mean that they now 
attempted to repudiate the great concession made at 
Jerusalem, and reimpose the law ? That would be 
inconceivably childish, especially for Barnabas. No, 
but conversely with Paul his Jewish friends felt that 
unless rules were laid down governing the eating of 
Christian Jews when among Gentile brethren, the 
Gentile Christian would be " compelling " his Jewish 
brother " to Hellenise." Hence " the elder brethren " 
in Jerusalem, applying in the absence of Peter and 
Paul what they conceived to be implied in the agree- 
ment, prescribed for mixed communities (Acts 15 : 23) 
abstinence from pollutions which would involve the 
Jew. 1 This well-meant, but to Paul intolerable, attempt 



1 It is a common error to suppose that eating with Gentiles is 
to the Jew unlawful per se. The strictest Jew may eat with 
a Gentile if the latter's table is guarded from "pollutions." 
When the unforeseen case of mixed communities arose, the 
Jerusalem authorities assumed this to be a "necessary " corol- 
lary of the agreement. In reality it was impracticable. Paul 
went as far toward adjusting Gentile tables to Jewish suscepti- 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 67 

to construe the agreement, constitutes the substance Purpose 
of the so-called " Jerusalem decrees," the enactment of decrees 
which Paul explicitly denies, for the occasion of Acts 
15 : 1-12 = Gal. 2 : 1-10 ; so that their introduction in 
Acts 15 : 13-35 is premature. Indeed, in the nature 
of the case, they could not precede Peter's vacillation 
at Antioch, for three of the decrees prescribe just the 
terms on which he might "eat with the Gentiles." 
The fourth, the prohibition of fornication, is intended 
to remove an obstacle to fellowship of a different kind. 
It must be understood literally as a reenforcement of 
the incredible laxity of Gentile morality. Its perti- 
nence appears from the emphasis which Paul himself 
lays upon it in the same manner and the same con- 
nection (1 Thess. 4:3-8; Gal. 5 : 20 ; 1 Cor. 6 : 12-20). 
To suppose that the Apostles would have wantonly 
interfered with the marital relations of Gentile fami- 
lies is to regard them as insane fanatics. 

Thus the course of events which led up to the great 
breach between Paul and the older Apostles, and so 
colours all his later career, was as follows : After the 
evangelisation of Galato-Phrygia, reactionaries in An- 
tioch objected, but met complete discomfiture on refer- 
ence of the question to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas 
returned to Antioch accompanied by Peter (not " Judas 
and Silas," Acts 15 : 22). Disregard of the law here 
by Peter and the Jews for the sake of fraternisation 
was made the occasion of a second complaint at Jeru- 
salem drawing thence the delegation (Judas and 
Silas ?) and the decrees in application of the compact, 
to which all the Jews at Antioch save Paul gave in. 

The more completely Paul found himself in the 

bilities as was practicable when he directed the "strong" 
brother to abstain when in his presence the "weak" (scrupu- 
lous) declared, "This hath been offered to an idol" (1 Cor. 
10:14-33). 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Paul's 

second stand 
for Gentile 
liberty at 
Antioch. 



Consequent 
separation 
from the 
elder 
brethren. 



minority the more unsparing was he in his remorse- 
less logic and his determination to make a second 
stand against Peter, Barnabas, the delegation from 
James, and all " the rest of the Jews " " that the truth 
of the Gospel might continue with " his Gentile con- 
verts. In a public meeting of the Church (e[XTrpo<r6ev 
irdvTwv) he charged Peter himself with a betrayal of 
both the agreement (drayKa£as 'IovSai£«v) and of his 
own acknowledged principles (vs. 16). He does not 
hesitate to impute to him in this letter both cowardice 
and "hypocrisy" (vs. 12 f.). 1 

We need no other explanation why Paul thenceforth 
no longer depends either on Jerusalem or Antioch as 
his missionary base ; why he is separated from Barna- 
bas, his old companion (Acts 15 : 39) ; why the Juda- 
isers no longer scruple to undermine his influence, 
attack his character and apostleship, proselytise his 
converts, and even guardedly recommend circumcision. 
We understand why Paul on his part makes no further 
appeal to the Apostles or older churches to put a stop 
to their machinations, why, after ten years of unsup- 
ported missionary labour when his great peace-offering 
(Bom. 15 : 16) of the churches of the Greek world is 
at last ready, and he is about to go up to Jerusalem 
bearing the rich evidence that he had indeed taught 
them to " remember the poor," he even doubts whether 
" the ministration which he has for Jerusalem will be 
acceptable to the saints," scarcely venturing to expect 
that he can be "delivered from them that are diso- 
bedient in Judaea" (Bom. 15 : 30 f.). We only wonder 



1 And Loman, Steck, Van Manen, and others maintain 
that this was forged, yet in spite of all was shortly after 
accepted as Pauline by churches which revered both Apostles, 
including those to which it falsely purported to have been sent ! 
We cannot believe that even Paul himself a year or two later 
would have written as he has in Gal. 2 : 12 f. 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 69 

at the Christian forbearance which on both sides went 
so far to heal the breach. For here is Paul on his 
part, at the first opportunity, even circumcising Tim- 
othy to conciliate " the Jews that were in those parts " 
(Galatia, Acts 16 : 3), 1 and subsequently in his letters 
to his churches so insisting upon those two of the 
decrees which had a real moral foundation as almost 
to conflict with his principle that even abstinence 
from d8t)\69vTOL is a voluntary concession to the scruples 
of the weak (Eom. c. 14 ; 1 Cor. 6 : 12 ff . ; 8:1- 
11 : 1). We find him in all his quarrel with the 
" supereminent Apostles " speaking with only respect With 
and honour of Peter, Barnabas, James, and the Twelve Aspect 
(1 Cor. 3 : 22 ; 9 : 5 f. ; 15: 1-11), and in Ephesians, 
after the visit to Jerusalem, he is brimming over with 
the glad consciousness that the enmity between Jew 
and Gentile is "slain," the wall of division in the new 
temple of God broken down; nay, in his vision, the 
very foundation of the now united Church is "the 
consecrated Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus him- 
self being the head stone of the corner " (2 : 20). On 
the other side there was also generosity. Beyond the 
immediate circle of Antiochian churches for -which 
the decrees were enacted (" Antioch, Syria and Cilicia," 
Acts 15 : 23) there is no evidence of their promulga- 
tion, 2 and even the passages which relate to them in 
Acts 15 : 20, 29 ; 21 : 25, in the Western text have been The later 
transformed into mere moral requirements. 3 At Ephe- church. 

1 McGiffert in dating Galatians before Paul's departure from 
Antioch (Acts 15 : 36 ff.) is of course obliged to reject Acts 
16 : 3 as unhistorical ; cf . Gal. 5 : 2. 

2 The statement of Acts 16 : 4 not only is preposterous in view 
of the above, but conflicts with the address of the letter (15 : 23). 

2 It reads in vs. 29, " To abstain from things offered to idols 
and blood (i.e. violence) and fornication, and not to do to an- 
other the things ye would not should happen to yourselves" ; 
cf. A:5. 1 : 2. 



crisis. 



70 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

sus a generation later the author of Kev. 2 : 14, 20, 
whether John the Apostle, or only some representa- 
tive of Palestinian Christianity, deems himself abso- 
lutely loyal to the great founder of the churches of 
Asia in insisting upon those two of the decrees, and 
those only (v. 24, cf . Acts 15 : 28), to which Paul him- 
self had demanded obedience — not indeed as decrees, 
but on moral grounds. A few years later still we find 
the same requirement put forward by the Church at 
large. At8. 6 : 3, after a prohibition of fornication, 
directs, "As concerning meats, bear what thou art 
able ; yet abstain at all events from meat sacrificed to 
idols ; for it is the worship of dead gods " (cf . 1 Cor. 
10 : 20 f .). 

Results of We may not have the direct language of Peter in 

the Galatian ^ p eter , nor of James in James, the former Pauline 
to the core, the latter a well-meant interpretation of 
Paulinism ; but if Mk. 7 : 1-19 and Acts 10 : 9-16 ; 
11 : 3-10, are not Petrine in source it would be hard to 
find what might be so termed, and here Paul's demand 
is conceded both in principle and in practice, though 
in Acts anachronistically, and elsewhere, too, not 
always with clear appreciation of Paul's point of 
view. But in general we may say: What might be 
expected to happen when Paul carried his olive 
branches to Jerusalem after the ten years of misun- 
derstanding and estrangement, is substantially what 
we find related in Acts 21 : 17-28, including the attack 
of the "Jews from (Proconsular) Asia"; for while 
Paul's differences with the older Apostles never in- 
volved a principle, and could not fail to give way 
to the spirit manifested in Rom. 15 : 25-33, there 
was in all the region from Antioch to Ephesus an 
element of bitter, implacable hatred, from the time 
that he had openly denounced the second attempt of 
the Judaisers to employ the authority of the Jerusalem 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 71 

Church against him. It must be confessed that the 
letter to the Galatian churches was not of a type 
to conciliate them (Gal. 1 : 10). To the legalists 
it was, in fact, a declaration of open war, and not 
altogether one-sided in strength, since Paul had de- 
prived himself of his best allies by his harshness to 
Peter and Barnabas. Of its effect on the Galatians 
we have only hints, but most happy ones, in 1 Cor. 
16 : 1 and Acts 20 : 4, where the delegation charged 
with the offering at Jerusalem includes Gaius of Derbe 
and Timothy of Lystra. 

If Paul's two letters to Thessalonica were also of The corre- 
the year 50, as we have assumed, but a few weeks or ^th The&- 
months later than Galatians, we should expect them salonica. 
to show some echo of the conflict. It is true that the 
Judaisers seem never to have penetrated Macedonia 
(Phil. 1 : 3) and the same motives which led to the 
drawing of a veil over the painful scenes at Antioch 
would exclude the subject now, if possible. Uncon- 
sciously, however, the Apostle's tone might be expected 
to betray here and there his emotion. Such traces 
appear indeed to be present ; but they are few, 1 for 
another subject engrosses him. 

Unlike Galatians and Romans, the letters to Thessa- 
lonica and Corinth form part of a correspondence, so 
that logical form is often superseded by the sequence 
of the letter, or other information, to which Paul is 

i We mention only 1 Thess. 2 : 4 (cf. Gal. 1 : 10) ; 2:15 (cf. 
Gal. 6 : 12), 3 : 7 f. (Gal. 4 : 19) ; 1 : 5 ff. (Gal. 6:7); 2 Thess. 
3 : 2 f. (Gal. 1:7; 3:1; 4:17; 5 : 7-12) ; 2 Thess. 3 : 13 (Gal. 
6:9). One of the counts against the genuineness of 2 Thess. 
has been its undue suspicion of unscrupulous enemies, 2 : 2, 15 ; 
3: 17. Paul's own previous letter, distorted by report, was 
probably the only objective factor: cf. 1 Thess. 5: 27, and see 
Julicher, Einleitung 3 , p. 41, but after the Galatian episode he 
had cause to distrust " false brethren." 



72 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Analysis of 

l 1 " 



Analysis of 

2 Thess. 



replying. The order of 1 and 2 Thessalonians is as 
follows : — 

i. Answer to the Thessalonians' letter, cc. 1-3. 

(1) Salutation, and epistolary thanksgiving and 
prayer, 1 : 1, 2-10. 

(2) Defence against Jewish (2 : 15 f.) charges that 
the " Apostles " (vs. 6) were self-seeking deceivers, 
2 : 1-12. 

(3) Eeciprocation of the Thessalonians' thanksgiv- 
ing for " the word of the message " in praise to God 
for their steadfastness under Jewish persecution, 
2 : 13-16. 

(4) Why Paul had been unable to revisit them, and 
was compelled instead to send Timothy, whose report 
just received on his return is a great relief. Until 
able to come in person, Paul commends them to God, 
2 : 17-20 ; 3 : 1-5, 6-10, 11-13. 

ii. Exhortation to further Progress, cc. 4, 5. 

(1) In Christian morality, (a) regarding sexual pur- 
ity, 4 : 1-8 ; (6) regarding the manifestation of love in 
reciprocal service and industry, 9-12. 

(2) In doctrine, (a) as to the participation of de- 
ceased friends in the Messianic resurrection, 4 : 13-18 ; 
(b) as to the sudden coming of Christ, 5 : 1-11. 

(3) In administration of church affairs, 5 : 12-22. 

(4) Blessing and farewell, 5 : 23-28. 

A reply to 1 Thessalonians was soon received by 
Paul, to which 2 Thessalonians makes answer as 
follows : — 

Supplementary Letter 

(1) Salutation and thanksgiving reciprocating 1 that 
of the Thessalonians, 1 : 1, 2, 3-12. 

1 From 1 : 4 it appears that the corresponding element of the 
Thessalonians' letter had deprecated Paul's praise (1 Thess. 1 : 
4-10 ; 2 : 14). They should glory in Paul. From 1 : 11 it is 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 73 

(2) Correction of current misinterpretations of 
Paul's doctrine of the Parousia; evil must first cul- 
minate ; expression of confidence and blessing, 2 : 1-12, 
13-15, 16-17. 

(3) Concluding exhortation, 3 : 1-15. (a) General 
approval, 1-5 ; (&) reenf orcement of the previous ad- 
monition to church, discipline in view of reported 
insubordination, 6-15. 

(4) Blessing and autograph farewell, 3 : 16, 17-18. 

In 1 Thessalonians Paul is replying to a letter * just Occasion of 
received by the hand of Timothy, whom he had sent 1 Tness> 
back from Athens after receiving his report of the 
trials the infant church was undergoing, to comfort 
them (1 Thess. 3:1-5). A fuller account of the cir- 
cumstances can be had by comparing the slightly dis- 
crepant statements of Acts 17 : 1-10 ; 18 : 1, 5 with 
1 Thess. 1 : 1, 5, 7, 8 ; 2:9; 3 : 1-6. 2 A promised visit 
had been frustrated, the persecuting Jews making the 
fact a basis for slander which Paul must meet. Tim- 
othy's report had been highly encouraging (3 : 6 f .), 
though there is room " to perfect that which is lacking 
in their faith." Morally Paul urges only the matter 
of purity and the general obligation of love and mutual 
helpfulness (4 : 1-12). Doctrinally they as Greeks are Doctrinal 
naturally in need of explanation of his teaching as 
to the bodily resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. c. 15), deaths 

clear that they had assured him of their prayers in his behalf, 
as requested 1 Thess. 5 : 25. 

1 See the art. by R. Harris in Expositor, January, 1899, and 
note the /cat ij/xeTs 1 Thess. 2 : 13. 

2 Acts gives a wrong impression (i) of the proportion of Jews, 
a result of the author's pragmatism ; (ii) of the time spent 
(17:2); cf. Phil. 4: 16, and the evidences of development in 
1 Thess. 2 : 8-11, 17-20 ; 3 : 5-10 ; (iii) Acts 17 : 14-16 ; 18 : 5 
omits a journey of Timothy to Athens and back ; cf. 1 Thess. 
3:1-6. 



74 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Occasion of 
2 Thess. 



Doctrinal 
content. 



having occurred in the church. Paul appeals to the 
teaching of Jesus (Matt. 10 : 39 ? ) regarding the equal 
share in the kingdom of those who die before the 
Second Coming, following this with a typical Jewish 
representation of the scenes of the Judgment Day, 
which will overtake the unbelieving world as a thief 
(Lk. 12 : 39 f . ; 17 : 26-30 ; Eev. 3 : 3). Christians will 
watch and be sober, not taken unaware, however sud- 
den the Coming of the Lord. Concluding exhortations 
look especially to church discipline and the moderation 
of a somewhat inflammatory " spirit of prophecy." 

A further link in the correspondence is 2 Thessalo- 
nians; for while the amanuensis may have been dif- 
ferent, 1 the senders (Paul, Silas, and Timothy) are the 
same, and the situation merely a little later in time, 
enough for word back and forth (1:11; 3 : 1, 4). 2 

The opening thanksgiving and prayer 3 (combined 
as in 1 Thess. 1:2; Col. 1:3, 9; Eph. 1:3 ff., 15; 
Phil. 1:3 f.) are for the continued growth of the 
church in faith and love, despite persistent persecu- 
tion. They foreshadow, characteristically, the main 
subject, the Day of the Lord. 

The main occasion of the letter appears in c. 2. 
The notion was current " whether through spirit (i.e. 
utterance of a local ' prophet ' ; cf. 1 Thess. 5 : 19 f.), 
or report, or letter purporting to be from those with 

1 Slight peculiarities of language are noted, as eix a P l < rTe ^ v 
6<peiXofj.ev 1 : 3 ; 2 : 13, for evxapt-o-Todfiev 1 Thess. 1:2; 2 : 13, 
Ktjpios for 6e6s in a few formulae, etc. 

2 We may date 2 Thess. about the end of 50 a.d. Corinth is 
already the centre of a group of churches (1 : 4, cf . 2 Cor. 1:1; 
Rom. 16 : 1) and opposition is high (3 : 2), but Gallio's decision 
(Acts 18 : 12) does not come within view. 

3 Note again the significant and inimitable uare avroi/s 
i] fia s iv bfj.iv evKavxaadai. The Thessalonians had written that 
they boasted of the Apostles against the slanderers ; cf. 2 Cor. 
1: 14. 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 75 

Paul " (2 : 2), that the Day of the Lord had already 
begun 1 (cf. 1 Thess. 2:16; Jn. 3:19-21; 12:31). 
Paul suspects misrepresentation (iiaTraT^arj). He en- 
ters, therefore, more into the particulars of his escha- 
tology, qualifying the warnings of 1 Thessalonians as 
to the suddenness of the Coming, by interjecting the 
Jewish doctrine of Antichrist, whose work must first 
reach its culmination. If this constitutes a contradic- 
tion of 1 Thessalonians it is not more so than the 
qualification in Lk. 21 : 7-33, and parallels, of the warn- 
ing against being taken unaware in Lk. 17:26-30; 
21 : 34-36, and parallels. Both are elements of the 
Lord's teaching. The section closes with an exhorta- 
tion to stand by the traditions taught them (cf . 1 Thess. 
4 : 15), " whether by word, or epistle of ours." 

The practical section (c. 3) lays increased emphasis Practical 
on repression of the disorders of 1 Thess. 4 : 11 f . ; 
5 : 14, advancing from general exhortation to specific 
command (2 Thess. 3:4, 6, 12). The drones who 
receive church support in return for inflammatory 
" prophecies " are " commanded " to follow Paul's 
example of industry (1 Thess. 2 : 9-12). Disobedience 
is to be visited with church discipline. The autograph 
farewell is the token of authenticity in every letter. 2 

Of all the earlier epistles of Paul, 2 Thessalonians 
alone admits a reasonable doubt of genuineness in the Genuineness 
judgment of modern critics. 3 External evidence proves ° J ess " 

1 "Just at hand," Am. R. V., hardly expresses ivia-TTjKev ; 
cf. 2 Tim. 2 : 18. 

2 References to the previous letter (2:2, 15 ; 3 : 13 (?)) or 
letters (3 : 17) show that Paul's correspondence with his 
churches did not begin with 1 Thess. or even with Gal. (cf . 2 
Cor. 11 : 28), though with Gal. they may well have assumed a 
vastly increased importance. 

8 A post-Pauline imitation of 1 Thess. in the judgment of 
Hilgenfeld, "Weizsacker, Holtzmann, et al. Defended by Juli- 
cher, and many others. 



76 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

it indeed to have been, in existence at least as early as 
117 a.d. and universally acknowledged in 138, which 
precludes the date under Trajan assumed by Hilgen- 
feld and a few radicals. But if we place the date 
before 70 a.d., as is reasonably certain from 2:4, it is 
conceivable that a Christian apocalyptist might aim 
to modify Paul's eschatology in 1 Thessalonians in the 
direction suggested by the reign and death of Nero, 
and martyrdom of the Apostle. 1 The style is admit- 
tedly Pauline and the language not un-Pauline, but 
this can be accounted for as due to the large element 
of reproduction of 1 Thessalonians. The subject 
(1 : 5-10 ; 2 : 1-12) and the appeals to apostolic tradi- 
tion and command (2 : 15 ; 3:4, 6, 14) are readily 
adaptable to such a theory, while the distinctly sharper 
tone of authority than in 1 Thessalonians may also be 
Principal so explained. 2 But the principal objections to the gen- 
objections. uineness are two . £) 2 Thess. 2:2, if the epistle 
were genuine, would prove the circulation during 
Paul's lifetime of spurious letters, which is admitted 
to be highly improbable, (ii) The eschatology is said 
to be un-Pauline. 
Reply. But (i) 2 Thess. 2 : 2 does not prove the existence 

of spurious letters, but, at most, of the suspicion in 
Paul's mind of such a possibility, 3 which as Julicher 
has pointed out would be easily accounted for by dis- 

1 So Schrniedel in Holtzmann's Handbuch. 

2 Spitta (Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchr., p. 137) suggests a different 
amanuensis — a reasonable explanation of the phrases above 
noted (p. 74 n. 1). The sharper tone is quite as likely to be due 
to historical conditions ; cf. 2 Cor. 10-13 with 1 Cor. 9. It cer- 
tainly proves 2 Thess. the later of the two (against Grotius, Bun- 
sen, Ewald, et ah). From 3 : 11, 14 (?) it might be inferred 
that the Thessalonian church authorities had requested this sup- 
port from the Apostle toward the carrying out of his exhorta- 
tion, 1 Thess. 5 : 14. 

8 Perhaps not a more serious suspicion than in Gal. 1 : 8. 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 77 

torted reports of "what was taught in the genuine 
letter (cf . 1 Thess. 1 : 10 ; 2 : 16 ; 4 : 13-17). 

Objection (ii) borrows much of its force from a now 
discredited method of treating apocalypse. Gunkel 
and Bousset have shown that the true key to its sym- 
bolism is not to be found in the allegorising of current 
events, but in the adaptation of a stereotyped, in all 
essential elements pre-Christian material. The "little 
apocalypse," 2 Thess. 2 : 3-12, is un-Pauline in precisely 
the same way that the "little apocalypse" of Matt. ch. 
24 and parallels is un-Christian. 1 

It does not follow that Paul and Jesus did not take Apocalyptic 
up such elements of current belief in which they had jesus and 
been nurtured since childhood, even alongside of new Paul, 
principles which to moderns seem more or less incon- 
gruous. It is undeniable that they showed this natural 
mental hospitality in the sphere of angelology and 
demonology ; why not in eschatology ? But more ; we 
may rightly deny that any incompatibility of thought 
exists between 2 Thess. 2 : 3-12 and the Pauline es- 
chatology of 1 Thessalonians or elsewhere, and fairly 
affirm that no date subsequent to Paid's death will 
so well account for the representation of 2 Thess. 2 : 
3-12 as 50-51 a.d. 

T\ T e need not assume with Hitzig in vs. 6 f . a play upon Antichrist 
the name Claudius (=qui claudit, he who restrains), in ess ' 
nor deny that "the restrainer" may well be a primeval 
element of the Antichrist legend ; but in the present 
application of the word, first neuter, then masculine, 
the reference is certainly to Paul's unfailing refuge 
against Jewish malice and persecution, the usually 
incorruptible Koman magistracy (Bom. 13 : 1-6), 
which at this very period was signally befriending 
him (Acts 18 : 12-17). The savage persecution of 

i Cf. "Belial" 2 Cor. 6 : 15 with 2 Thess. 2 : 3, 4, and see 
E. Haupt Eschat. Aussagen Jesu, 1895. 



to date. 



78 NEW TESTAMENT INTBOBVCTION 

Nero, in which both Peter and Paul were victims, at 
least according to early belief, was a thunderbolt from 
the clear sky, which struck the Church dumb with 
horror and completely transformed its conception of 
the Empire (cf . Rev. 6 : 9-11 ; 7 : 14 ; 14 : 8 ; 16 : 19 ; 
18 : 24). A representation of Rome as a protecting 
power, "restraining" Belial, even temporarily, is 
inconceivable after July 64 a.d. 
Results as Similarly with the "mystery of lawlessness," the 

Antichrist whose lying "signs and wonders" will 
lead to the great apostacy among the elect people 
(Israel), so that, as a parody of the true Messiah, he 
shall sit in the temple at Jerusalem, receiving divine 
honours. We may admit a possible tincture of the 
language by the frightful experience of Paul's father- 
land in Caligula's insane attempt to erect his statue 
there for worship (39-40 a.d. ; cf. 1 Thess. 2:16), 
but the elements are pure, stereotyped Jewish apoc- 
alyptic tradition (cf. Matt. 24: 15, 24, 30 and parallels, 
and Rev. cc. 13, 17 ; 2 Esdr. 13 : 10 f . ; At8. 16 etc.). 
But it is no less certain that the author presupposes 
the continued existence of " the Jerusalem that now 
is" (Gal. 4:25; cf. Rev. 11:1-8) and its visible 
temple, at least until the culmination of the power of 
Antichrist, than that the centre of gravity for the entire 
power of evil is Jewish and purely Jewish. The an- 
tithesis is between the earthly Jerusalem under the 
mastery of Belial and apostate Israel (vss. 3, 10-12), 1 
and the heavenly Jerusalem, revealed at the coming 
of Jesus (Phil. 3 : 20). Rome plays a subordinate 
part. Surely the Pauline disciple who between 65 

i Cf. Rev. 11 : 8 ; Rom. 11 : 11-14, 23-32 supplements this doc- 
trine of the rejection of all but the "remnant" of Israel with 
the hopeful paradox of the provocation to jealousy of the rest ; 
but this looks beyond the point reached in 2 Thess. and itself 
is probably an adaptation of apocalyptic tradition. 



THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 79 

and 70 a.d. could so readjust the eschatology of the 
great Apostle would be an extraordinary phenomenon. 
And then, in addition, to procure the acceptance of 
his forgery in the churches ! And this in spite of the 
fact that within a year or two events had given the 
lie to his expectation (2:4). 

In spite of all ingenuity, no historical setting has Forgery 
yet been framed to account for 2 Thessalonians, whether probable!*" 
as a unit, or as a combination of Pauline with post- 
Pauline elements 1 so free from serious objection to 
an impartial judgment as the view supported by its 
own representation and by the unbroken tradition of 
antiquity, that it was written by Paul from Corinth 
in answer to the reply from Thessalonica to 1 Thes- 
salonians, 2 and aims to remove certain misconstructions 
of the same. The present tendencies of criticism are 
all in favour of this view. 

1 So P. W. Schmidt (Prot. Bibel), Davidson (Introd. i, 
p. 347), Hase (Kirchengesch. i, 1885, p. 284). Schmiedel (loc. 
cit.) acknowledges the futility of division theories. 

2 Observe 1 : 4, 11 (?) ; 3 : 1, and the relation above noted of 
3 : 11, 14 to 1 Thess. 5 : 14 followed by 2 Thess. 3 : 6-15. 

In addition to Introductions, Lives of Paul, etc., see Ram- 
say's Historical Commentary on Galatians, 1899 ; Lightfoot, 
Galatians, 10 1890 ; J. Weiss, Apostelgesch., 1898 ; Lightfoot's art. 
in Smith's B. D., " Second Thess." ; and Farrar, Paul, ii, Exc. 
1. For the genuineness of Paul's epistles see especially Knowl- 
ing, The Witness of the Epistles. Jowett ( The Epistles of St. 
Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Bomans, 1856) and Elli- 
cott, (Galatians 1854, ±1867, Tliessalonians 1865) have special 
commentaries of value. The consecutive vols, of Meyer's great 
Commentary on the books of the N. T. (Engl. 1887) contain 
each. Introductions. Holtzmann's Hand-Commentar is unfortu- 
nately untranslated. Less thorough are those of the English 
serial commentaries, the Cambridge Greek Testament 1887-, etc. 



CHAPTEE IV 

THE EPISTLES OF THE FIRST PERIOD : THE CORRE- 
SPONDENCE WITH CORINTH AND LETTER TO ROME 



1 and 2 Cor. 
and Rom. 



Character 
of the 
Achaian 
church. 



The letters of the period between Paul's two depar- 
tures from Corinth, after his first and after his last 
visit, present problems of a predominantly historical 
character. Their authenticity is practically undis- 
puted. Romans can be shown to have been known 
not only to Clement of Kome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, 
but even to the authors of 1 Peter, Hebrews, and 
James. 1 1 Corinthians is almost equally well known 
from the very beginning, and, as we saw, is spoken 
of by Clement of Rome as written by Paul to the Cor- 
inthians. 2 Corinthians appears to have come into 
circulation later, but is equally unassailable. Critics 
differ only as to the circumstances of writing, and as 
to whether in 2 Corinthians and Romans, fragments 
of other letters of Paul may not have been editorially 
taken up. 

The special interest of the author of Acts leads him 
to drop the whole subject of Paul's missionary activity 
in Achaia as soon as the inevitable breach with the 



1 Thus Rom. 9 : 25 = 1 Pet. 2 : 10, Rom. 9 : 32 f. = 1 Pet. 2 : 
6-8, Rom. 12 : 1 = 1 Pet. 2 : 5, Rom. 12 : 2 = 1 Pet. 1 : 14. We 
have reproductions of the thought of Rom. 12 : 3-6, 9 f., 16-18, 
13 : 1-7 in 1 Pet. 4 : 7-11 ; 1 : 22 ; 3 : 8, 9, 11; 2 : 13-17. Heb. 11 : 
11 f ., 19 and 10 : 30 depend on Rom. 4 : 17-21 and 12 : 19. Rom. 
2 : 1, 13 ; 4 : 1, 20 ; 5 : 3-5 ; 7 : 23, and 13 : 12 recur in Jas. 4 : 11 ; 
1 : 22 ; 2:21; 1 : 6, 2-4 ; 4 : 1, and 1 : 21. 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 81 

synagogue takes place (18 : 6 ; cf . 13 : 46, etc. ), and 
the Apostle is thus compelled to "turn to the Gen- 
tiles." Hence, while it is clear from the epistles 
(1 Cor. 12:2) that this group of churches, including 
perhaps even Athens, as well as Cenchreee and other 
neighbouring towns (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1 : 1), was pre- 
dominantly of Gentile origin, the converts mentioned 
in Acts 18 : 1-18 include not one Gentile, not even 
those whom Paul had personally baptised (perhaps in 
the early period before the coming of Silas and Timo- 
thy, Acts 18:5), not even "the household of Stepha- 
nas, the firstfruits of Achaia" (1 Cor. 1 : 14-16 ; 16 : 15). 
On the other hand, the epistles give even more unmis- 
takable evidence than Acts of the usual leaven of Jews 
and Jewish Christians, with the troubles occasioned at 
first by the former (Acts 18: 12-17; cf. 20:3), after- 
ward by the latter (2 Cor. cc. 10-13). 

Begun under a special sense of personal insufficiency its early 
(1 Cor. 2:1-5), Paul's work among the mixed popu- hlstor y- 
lation of the great heathen city * had proved excep- 
tionally fruitful (1:4-7; cf. Acts 18:8-11), though 
among the humbler classes (1 : 26), and against strenu- 
ous opposition (1 Thess. 2:15 f.; 2 Thess. 3:2; cf. 
Acts 18: 6, 12-17). His earliest allies were a certain 
Aquila and Prisca (Acts, "Priscilla"), a Jewish 
couple whom he encountered on his arrival, recently 
expelled from Rome under an edict of Claudius, which 
Orosius dates in 49 a.d. 2 This couple, if not owing 
their conversion itself to Paul, became his permanent 
helpers, not merely in evangelisation, but in the 
manual labour by which the Apostle eked out the 
scanty aid of the infant and persecuted churches of 
Macedonia; for he would suffer no man to say he had 

i See B. D.," Corinth." 

2 Probably an error for fifty. See Ramsay, Paul, p. 254. 



82 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

taken money from those he was seeking to evangelise 
(2 Cor. 11 : 7-12). But Jewish malice was effectually 
frustrated by Gallio, the high-minded and courteous 
brother of Seneca, who would seem to have reached 
his province about May, 1 51 a.d. The charge they 
immediately brought against Paul before him appears 
to have been that of propagating a cult unrecognised 
by Eoman law; for they argue from their Scriptures 
that the new doctrine has no claim to the legal privi- 
leges of Judaism. Gallio, with all a philosopher's 
contempt for religious persecution, and a lawyer's for 
pettifogging, summarily quashed the complaint, and 
permitted the crowd its own emphatic approval of the 
verdict. 2 Thus, when Paul, shortly after, with Prisca 
and Aquila, took his leave of the church where he had 
laboured for eighteen months (Acts 18 : 11) all out- 
ward circumstances were propitious. Subsequent 
events must explain to us the painful conditions so 
clearly exhibited in the letters. 
Date of Paul writes from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8). Be- 

l Cor. tween two and three years have elapsed (Acts 18 : 22 f . ; 

19:8-10; 20:31); for his work there is nearly done, 
and his journey to Jerusalem with the great offering 
of his churches is already planned (1 Cor. 16:1-6). 
It is shortly before Passover (5 : 7 f . ), but Paul will 
stay until Pentecost, because of great exigencies and 
opportunities. The plan is the same as that of 2 Cor. 
1: 15-2: 1; 9: 4 f., the same as actually carried out 
(Acts 19:21 f.; 20:1-3). It appears from 2 Cor. 

1 Eamsay, Expositor, V, 5, p. 205. 

2 The Sosthenes whose unlucky conduct of the case against 
Paul brought retribution from the bystanders must then either 
be a wholly different person from Paul's friend (1 Cor. 1 : 1), 
or his flogging must have led to a very surprising change of 
heart. More probably there is a confusion of names in Acts 
18 : 17 occasioned by vs. 8. 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 83 

1 : 15 ff . to have been the substitute for an earlier 
plan, involving a double visit in Corinth, which Paul 
for his own reasons had changed. Unless we suppose, 
therefore, a change and a change back again, 1 the 
alteration was in a plan which preceded our 1 Co- 
rinthians, 2 and this is the more probable from the 
apologetic tone of 1 Cor. 16 : 5-9, especially verse 7. 
It is, therefore, early spring of 54 a.d., and Paul has 
not been in Corinth since his departure in the fall of 
51 ; 8 for all his information is at second hand. Di- 
rect knowledge would certainly appear if he had him- 
self visited the church. 

In the meantime, during Paul's absence among the Events in 
scenes of his earlier missionary labours, Prisca and since 1 Paul's 
Aquila had met at Ephesus an Alexandrian Jewish departure. 
Christian, named Apollos, of great learning and brill- 
iancy (Acts 18:22-24 ; 19: 1), and, after indoctrinat- 
ing him with Pauline views, had commended him to 
the church in Corinth, where his work prospered in 
the extension of the church, as well as in the refuta- 
tion of the Jews (1 Cor. 3:10-15; Acts 18:24-28). 
But at the time of our epistle, Apollos has come back 
to Ephesus and is with Paul; he even declines to 
return to Corinth, though Paul himself seconds their 
invitation (1 Cor. 16:12). This is one source of 
Paul's information concerning the church. Further 
reports, by no means favourable, had come through 
" the household of Chloe " (1 : 11), whose residence had 
perhaps been transferred from Corinth to Ephesus. 

1 Various combinations of 2 Cor. 1 : 15 with 12: 14, 20, 21; 
13 : 1 are tried by Schmiedel et al. to make 1 Cor. 16 : 5-7 
appear the original plan. 

2 Communicated in the letter mentioned 1 Cor. 5 : 9 or through 
Timothy. 

3 Implied in 2 : 1. Many infer a visit from 2 Cor. 2:1, 12 : 
14, 21 ; 13 : 1, 2, but the margin (R. V.) gives the true meaning. 



84 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

But there had been direct communication as well. A 
previous letter from the Apostle had been sent to 
warn the church against fellowship with fornicators 
(5:9). Paul is now in receipt of the reply, whose 
bearers, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, are 
still with him (16: 17 f.) ; but it is far from satisfac- 
tory on the point of discipline involved, while asking 
light on several other problems, which Paul ulti- 
mately discusses seriatim. Before this, however, he 
deals with the abuses of which report has reached 
him, and which have become so serious as to require 
the sending of Timothy in advance of his own coming, 
though the letter is expected to reach them first of all 
Occasion (4:17-21; 16:10 f.). The twofold occasion for the 
ofi Qor lyS1S l e ^ er is thus as clearly indicated as we have found its 
date. It appears in the sharp division at 7:1, "Now 
concerning the things whereof ye wrote." In the 
latter half, accordingly, the order will be simply that 
of the Corinthians' questions, which are probably 
answered seriatim. As a whole, the letter yields the 
following analysis: — 

i. Salutation and Thanksgiving, 1:1-3; 4-9. 

ii. Rebuke of the Evils reported to Paul by Visitors 
from Corinth, 1 : 10-6 : 20. 

1. Factiousness, 1 : 10-4 : 21. a. The four party 
cries, 1 : 10-17. b. Paul in his personal method had 
been indifferent to philosophical elaboration of the 
message, though able so to apply it as to solve mys- 
teries, 1:18-2:5; 2:6-16. c. Simple teaching was, 
and still is, better adapted to their undeveloped con- 
dition; the building of Apollos or others on Paul's 
substructure must be judged by its stability, 3 : 1-9, 
10-15. d. Destructive rather is the factious exalta- 
tion of one teacher and depreciation of another, 
3 : 16-23 ; 4 : 1-5. e. Application to himself and 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 85 

Apollos, whose spirit is far different from that of 
the party leaders. A threat against the usurpers, 
4:6-13, 14-21. 

2. Immorality and Litigiousness, cc. 5, 6. a. A 
case of incest tolerated, 5 : 1-8. b. The excuse of 
misunderstanding Paul's previous letter removed, 
9-13. c. Litigation between Christians a disgrace; 
still more the wrong-doing. Our freedom not liber- 
tinism, 6:1-11. d. Eating of el8w\66vTa and fornica- 
tion an abuse of the principle "all things are lawful," 
12-20. 

iii. Reply to the Enquiries of the Corinthians' Letter, 
cc. 7-16. 

1. Celibacy, Marriage, and Separation (in further 
explanation of the requirement, 2 Cor. 6 : 14 f . ?), c. 7. 

2. Tilings sacrificed to Idols (further explaining 
2 Cor. 6 : 16-7 : 1?), 8 : 1-11 : 1. a. Those superior to 
dietetic scruples must not forget the duty of considera- 
tion for the weak, c. 8. b. Reply to those who ques- 
tion his authority and practice. Paul's principle of 
accommodation, c. 9. c. But Christians who commit 
fornication and join in temple feasts repeat the sin 
into which Israel was led by Balaam at Baal-peor 
(Num. 25: Iff.). However, it is not necessary out- 
side the temples to enquire whether the meat was sac- 
rificial or not, unless to avoid stumbling a weak 
brother, 10:1-11:1. 

3. Order in Church Meetings, 11 : 2-14 : 40. a. Pro- 
priety in female costume, 11 : 2-16. b. Social cliques 
at the love-feasts, with the resulting inequalities of 
food and drink, grossly interfere with proper observ- 
ance afterward of the sacrament, 17-34. c. The vari- 
ous charismata must be mutually subordinated. The 
spectacular endowments ("tongues," "prophecy") are 
temporary; faith, hope, love, the abiding gifts. Good 
order, conducing to edification, the rule, under 



86 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

which "prophecy" appears superior to "tongues," 
cc. 12-14. 

4. Explanation of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of 
the Body, c. 15. a. The deniers of bodily resurrec- 
tion refuted, 1-34. b. The spiritual body not the old 
flesh resuscitated, vss. 35-58. 

5. Business Arrangements and Farewells, c. 16. 
a. The collection for Jerusalem, vss. 1-4. b. A post- 
ponement of Paul's visit, 5-9. c. Timothy's impend- 
ing arrival. Apollos declines for the present the 
invitation, 10-12. d. Personal farewells, 13-24. 

Occasion Just what occurred in Corinth after receipt of this 

an o 5, nal y sis letter is a subject of difficult and varied conjecture, 
but at the point where our documents resume Paul is 
apparently writing in response to the Corinthians' 
messages expressive of profound repentance and re- 
newed loyalty, sent by Titus (7 : 6-11), and as his 
fourth letter in the correspondence, our 2 Corinthians, 
with the following content : — 

i. Salutation and Thanksgiving for the divine com- 
fort, especially in view of Paul's recent narrow escape 
from death, 1 : 1-11. 

ii. Explanations of certain features of Paul's letters 
and conduct which had given offence, and expression 
of satisfaction for the reparation made, 1 : 11-2 : 4, 
5-11. 

iii. Paul's Present Circumstances and Disposition, 
2:12-7:16. 

a. His arrival in Macedonia from Troas, and rejoic- 
ing at Titus' news, 2 : 12-17. b. The vindication at 
their hands of himself and his fellow-workers not that 
of an unworthy ministry, as charged by legalists, 
though a ministry unintelligible to the carnal minded, 
and given to weak instruments. These, however, will 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 87 

be glorified in the last day : a hope which strengthens 
them in their service and supports them in their 
embassy, cc. 3, 4 : 1-6, 7-15; 4 : 16-5 : 10, 11-19, 5 : 20- 
6 : 10. c. Appeal to the Corinthians to dismiss the 
last vestige of distrust, because Titus' report shows 
them to have fully repented, 6:11-13; 7: 2-16 [6: 14- 
7:1, an unconnected fragment]. 

iv. Directions as to the Collection and Paul's Visit, 
cc. 8, 9. 

a. The generosity of Macedonia an example, 8 : 1-15. 
6. Commendation of the delegates who take the letter, 
16-24. c. Exhortation to a generous contribution, c. 9. 

v. Strenuous Denunciation of the Church for disloy- 
ally supporting the open enemies and slanderers of 
Paul, cc. 10-13. 

a. Sarcastic comparison by Paul of himself with 
his detractors, c. 10. b. Denunciation of the intruders, 
11 : 1-15. c. Forced self -commendation, 11 : 16-12 : 13. 
d. Warning to the church against compelling him to 
prove his Apostolic authority in punishment, 12 : 14- 
13:10. 

vi. Farewell and Blessing, 13 : 11-14. 

Taking up now Paul's second letter, our 1 Corin- Factious- 
thians, it is manifest that the fundamental difficulty Rebuked in 
at Corinth was a spirit of conceited self-sufficiency lCor. 
(4: 6-13) in their religious charisms (1 : 5-7; cc. 12-14) 
and enlightenment (1 : 18-2 : 5 ; 3 : 18 f . ), which had 
led to factious contentions about the forms of doctrine 
(1 : 10-12) coupled with a corresponding and fatal 
indifference to practical morality (cc. 5, 6). It is 
true, as urged by B. Weiss, 1 that Paul does not state 
that there were just four distinct parties in the church; 
and critics have doubtless gone too far in the attempt 

1 Einl. 3 1898 and art. in Am. Journ. of Theol, April, 1897. 



88 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

to identify in the four rallying cries of 1 : 12 four dis- 
tinct doctrinal divisions. It is noteworthy that Paul 
has no longer any occasion, as in Galatians, to defend 
the principle of justification by faith and freedom 
from the Law, or to warn against the Judaising propa- 
ganda. In fact, the only doctrinal discussion of the 
whole correspondence is the refutation of certain 
deniers of the (bodily) resurrection, whose tendencies 
were of course Hellenistic rather than Judaising 
(cf. Acts 17:32). But it should also be recognised 
that the rallying cries, " I am (a convert) of Paul, and 
I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ " (1 : 12) 
are not taken at random ; and while indicative of ten- 
dencies rather than parties, are worthy of the most 
painstaking scrutiny as exhibiting, in inchoate form, 
just those currents which the critical historian has 
come to recognise independently as determinative of 
the growth of doctrine. 1 
The parti- In rebuking the spirit of partisanship, Paul pur- 

anT Apollos. P ose ly confines himself to two of its manifestations 
(3:4-6; 4:6), though he implies (3:22 f.) that the 
same might be said as to all. The proof that the par- 
tisans of himself and Apollos are pursuing a mistaken 
loyalty lies in the fact that he and Apollos agree (3:8), 
while they are divided. The direction taken by the 
over-zeal of Paul's own adherents will appear from 
the letter of the church, since the appeal to him must 
chiefly represent his own adherents. 2 That taken by 
the converts of Apollos is easily recognisable from 
Paul's representation, in 1:17-3:20, of the contrast 
it presented to his own teaching. He, the founder of 
the church (4 : 15), had purposely refrained from 

1 See above p. 14. 

2 See the excerpt from the church's letter in 8 : 1-8 as below 
explained. Another extract is 11: 2, "ye remember," etc., 
expressing the strong loyalty of the writers to Paul. 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 89 

speculative dogma, declaring the simple facts of the 
crucified and risen Messiah, in whom is forgiveness 
and salvation (2:1 f . ; 15: 1-8). The teaching of the 
Alexandrian had been of such a character as we should 
expect from the description of Acts 18:24-28. To 
him, as perhaps to Paul at Athens, the philosophic 
soil of Achaia had seemed just the place to prove how, 
in the new religion, the great, half -realised idea of 
Philo, the Jewish neo-Platonist of Alexandria, could 
be achieved, and the wisdom of Israel married to the 
philosophy of Greece. Christ, as the "Wisdom of 
God," became the key which, by the allegorical 
method, would unlock all the treasures of divine 
revelation in the Old Testament. The best fruits of 
this type of early Christian thinking are visible in 
Acts 7, Hebrews, the Johannine Epistles and Gospel, 
and the Alexandrian Fathers; a cruder form in the 
Epistle of Barnabas. 

But the church was not only " puffed up " with its Scandals in 
"knowledge," it was grossly lax in its discipline. tnecnurcn - 
A case of incest went unrebuked in spite of Paul's 
previous letter, which they had interpreted in an 
impracticable sense (c. 5). Litigation between fellow- 
Christians put to shame the churchly prerogative of 
arbitration. 1 The Pauline principle that "all things 
are lawful" (6:12; cf. 10:23), "he that loveth his 
neighbour hath fulfilled the law " (Eom. 13 : 8-10), 
was perverted into antinomian laxity on the subject of 
meats and fornication. To Greeks it was not clear 
how any restriction on these points could be involved 
(6 : 12-20). The resulting scandal to Jewish believers 
may be imagined from Acts 15 : 20-29. 

Hence, when Paul now takes up the church's letter 

1 (6 : 1-11). A practice common to Greek religious fraterni- 
ties and to the synagogue, Schurer, Jewish People, etc., (Engl.) 
II, ii, § 31, p. 262 f ; cf. Lk. 12 : 13. 



90 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Questions 
referred to 
Paul: 
1. Meats 
and rela- 
tions of the 



of inquiry, we are not surprised to find the two ques- 
tions of marital and domestic relations 1 (c. 7) and 
"the eating of things sacrificed to idols" (8:1-11:1) 
occupying the foremost place. For the former his 
principle is: Existing social relations are to be 
accepted as the providential conditions within which 
the divine order must develop. In the latter he 
pleads for the " weak " brother, whose model appears 
to be "Cephas." In 8: la/3, 4, 5a, 6, 8, we have an 
extract from the letter before him, 2 exhibiting the 
" strong " Paulinism of the writers, which Paul quali- 
fies in his comments (8: 1&, 2 f., 56, 7, 9 ff.) by the 
principle of consideration. A " defence " against cer- 
tain deniers of his Apostolic authority, already alluded 
to in passing, in 4:3, 18-21, is interposed 3 (9 : 1-18 ; 
cf . 2 Cor. 11 : 7-13 ; 12 : 13) before the commendation of 
his own practice, correctly apprehended, as the right 
example in the matter of meats (9:19-11:1). With 
the positive prohibition of participation in idol 
feasts, and the condemnation of any known eating of 
el8a}\66vTa, as a stumbling of the "weak," coupled 
with his previous denunciation of fornication (6 : 12-20; 
cf . 10 : 7, 8), Paul has gone as far to meet " the brethren 
of the Lord and Cephas " as it is possible on his prin- 
ciples to go. The two remaining conditions of eating 
with the Gentiles imposed at Jerusalem are dropped, 
as we saw, in Eev. 2 : 14, 20. 

Another extract from the letter in 11 : 2 introduces 



1 See below, p. 95, note 2. 

2 Heinrici in Meyer's Commentary, 1880 ; cf. W. Locke in 
Expositor, 1897. 

8 Doubtless because his correspondents had referred to 
"others" (9:2) who repudiated the authority of Paul to 
which they themselves had appealed in justification of their 
" liberty " (vs. 1). Paul refers them to his own voluntary sac- 
rifice of his liberty (vs. 19). 



trine of res- 
urrection. 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 91 

Paul's settlement of questions of order in public wor- 2. Order in 
ship and the Lord's Supper (11 : 3-34), which leads gJrtMp. 
to a regulation of the coveted " spiritual gifts " of 
" prophecy," "tongues," etc., in accordance with their 
real inferiority to the abiding inner spiritual qualities 
of faith, hope, and love, on the principle that edifica- 
tion is the real end in view (cc. 12-14). 

The attempted Platonising of Paul's doctrine of 3. The doc- 
resurrection is met by a vigorous exposition of his 
doctrine of the spiritual body, based upon the admitted 
appearance of the risen Christ (c. 15). Epistolary 
matters occupy the closing chapter. 

2 Corinthians introduces us to a later stage of affairs. Date and 
Its problems are chiefly as to what has occurred in 2 C Cor 10n ° f 
the meantime. 1 It is written from Macedonia (7:5; 
8:1; 9:2, 4) and sent by Titus and other delegates of 
the churches appointed to travel with Paul to Jerusa- 
lem in charge of the fund (8:18-24). Paul's own 
coming will immediately follow, according to the plan 
of 1 Cor. 16 : 5 f . Thus, it appears that the time is 
shortly before winter (1 Cor. 16:6; Acts 20:3, 6), 
and this agrees with 9:2 (" since last year," cf. 1 Cor. 
16 :1). 2 Some six months, therefore, have elapsed. 
In the meantime not only had 1 Corinthians been 
delivered, and Timothy fulfilled his mission and 

1 For a complete summary of views see Holtzmann's Einl. 3 , 
p. 228 f. Paul's own recent movements, including escape from 
Ephesus "under sentence of death," so recently that the 
Corinthians will not have heard of it, are related in 2 Cor. 1 : 8- 
10 ; 2 : 12 f . ; 7 : 5-7 ; cf . Acts 19 : 21-20 : 1. To say the least, 2 
Cor. 2:1; 12 : 14, 20 f.; 13 : 1 f . (marginal rendering R. V.) 
affords no evidence of a visit to Corinth by Paul since the 
founding of the church : see Hilgenf eld in Zts. f. w. Th. , Janu- 
Liy, 1899. For the movements of Timothy and Titus see s. v. 
"Corinthians" in Hastings' B. D. 

2 The Macedonian and Jewish year began about October 1. 



92 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

returned (1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10 f . ; 2 Cor. 1:1), bat 
Paul had sent Titus and a " brother " x on business 
connected with the collection. Until just before, 
indeed, he has been in an agony of anxiety for his 
return (7 : 5-16), for matters in Corinth had taken a 
far different turn from what Paul had hoped (1 Cor. 
4:18-21), and the deniers of his apostolic authority, 
whom, but for 1 Cor. 4:3-5, 18-21; 9:1-18; 16:22, 
he had deemed it wisest to treat with silent contempt, 
had proved their ability so to take advantage of the 
situation as temporarily to threaten, if not usurp, his 
control (11 : 20 ; 12:11-13). In 10 : 7 ; 11 : 4, 13, 22 f . 
it appears that these intriguers are no other than the 
self-styled "(converts) of Christ" of 1 Cor. 1:12. 2 
Paul's _ They had come armed with " letters of commendation " 
an agoms s. as "apostles of Christ/' preaching "another Jesus," 
a "different spirit," and a "different gospel," based 
on knowledge of Christ after the flesh (5 : 12, 16 ; 

!The mission of Titus with "the brother" (12: 18) is of 
course to be distinguished from that on similar business, but 
accompanied by "the brethren" (8:6, 16, 18, 22-24). It is 
doubtless the earlier mission referred to in 8 : 6. On the 
hypothesis adopted below as to 2 Cor. cc. 10-13, this verse, 
12 : 18, must have been written while Titus was still detained. 

2 Godet (Introd. i. p. 254 f.) has an interesting theory based 
on 2 Cor. 11 : 3, 4 in comparison with 1 Cor. 12 : 3. The Christ 
party were docetists, who used the cry "We are of Christ" not 
merely in opposition to the names of Paul, Apollos, and 
Cephas, but to that even of Jesus. "Jesus be anathema" was 
the cry by which they expressed their contempt for knowledge 
of Christ " after the flesh." But this is just the opposite dispo- 
sition from that which Paul attributes to his chief opponents, 
whom he charges with externality, carnality, dependence on 
Hebrew descent, etc. The cry " Jesus be anathema" is doubt- 
less correctly interpreted, (cf. 1 Jn. 4: 1-3), but those who 
uttered it stood just at the opposite extreme, out-Pauling Paul 
in their disdain for external reality, as e.g. in the rejection of 
the doctrine of bodily resurrection. 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 93 

11 : 18 ; cf . Gal. 1 : 6-9) as against what they termed 
the "veiled gospel " of Paul (4:3). Paul was termed 
a crazy visionary (5 : 13), imposing upon his dupes by 
terrifying letters (10:9 f.), whose threats he spared 
himself the vain attempt to carry out (10 : 10) by 
indefinite postponements and changes of plan ( 1 Cor. 
4: 18-21; 16:4-9; 2 Cor. 1:15-2:3). Nay, they 
suspected worse. It was clear that if he were 
"examined" (1 Cor. 4:3; 9:3; 2 Cor. 13:3) it would 
appear that his refusal to burden them with his 
support was really because, unlike themselves (2 Cor. 
11 : 20), he lacked authorisation (1 Cor. 9 : 1-18 ; 2 Cor. 
11 : 7-12) ; and how suspicious that, nevertheless, once 
under his influence all his churches were induced to 
collect great sums of money and entrust them to him 1 
(12:16-18). The least the church should do would 
be to require a proof of his pretended Apostolic powers, 
miraculous and otherwise (12:11-13; 13:3, 10), and 
his ability to discipline, before entrusting money to 
his agents. 

That Paul should write such a denunciation as The denun- 
2 Cor. cc. 10-13 against a church which had allowed fetter. 7 
itself to be swerved from loyalty by the intrigues of 
such despicable interlopers is not surprising. Their 
success would be more surprising, but for the devilish 
plausibility of their imputations, and the circum- 
stances which made it so easy for the church to put 
off Timothy and Titus 2 with proposals to wait for 

1 Accusations of conversion of similar trust funds contributed 
for the support of the temple by the Jews of the Dispersion 
and entrusted to men held in the highest honour are a feature 
of the time. Special imperial legislation condemned the fraud 
as "temple robbery "; cf. Acts 19 : 37 ; Rom. 2 : 22. 

2 We conjecture that 2 Cor. 10 : 1-13 : 10 was written from 
Ephesus (10 : 1G) while Titus was at Corinth, on report from 
him of the disloyal attitude of the church. See below. 



94 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



To be identi- 
fied with 
2 Cor. cc. 
10-13. 



Paul's promised coming. What is incomprehensible 
is, that this denunciation, which is not of the recalci- 
trants directly, but of the church as a whole for yielding 
to them, should come at the close of a letter " overflow- 
ing with joy" (7:4) and thankfulness at the coming 
of Titus with news that the crisis is past, complete 
obedience reestablished, the chief offender punished, 
and a liberal contribution promised (2 Cor. 1:3 f., 11, 
14; 2:5-11; 4:15; 6:11-13; 7:2-4, 13-16), so that 
Paul can thankfully call upon them to prove his 
boasting of their generosity well founded (cc. 8-9). 
Even stranger is the forced self -commendation (12 : 11) 
after disclaimers in 3 : 1 and 5 : 12 of " further " self- 
commendation, because the Corinthians now fulfil 
their part (3 : 2 f.). Moreover, the references in 2 : 4; 
7 : 8-12 imply a letter very different from 1 Corinthians. 
It had been much more recent; for, though tormented 
by anxiety as to its effect, Paul has but just been able 
to obtain the cheering news (2 : 12 f . ; 7 : 5-7; cf. 10 : 6). 
It was so painful in character that he had even 
regretted its despatch ; yet in what purports to be part 
of the same letter he uses language so bitter, sarcasm 
so cutting, that nothing in 1 Corinthians can compare 
with it. Nothing can fully meet these facts but the 
recognition that 2 Cor. 10 : 1-13 : 10, with its sudden, 
unexplained change of speaker, 1 and more extraordi- 
nary change of tone, must come before, and not after, 
chapters 1-9 — is, in short, a fragment of the painful 
letter of self -commendation which Paul had been com- 
pelled to write by the church's disloyalty. 2 



1 "Now I Paul myself," implying that others' words have 
preceded. 

2 So Hausrath, Der Vierkapitelbrief, 1870. Others make 
2 Cor. 2:4; 7 : 8, 9, 12 refer to a lost letter, which referred to 
the case of 1 Cor. 5 : 1 f . ; or assume that a new offence had 
been committed directly against Paul, who would then be the 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 95 

With the illustration of Bom. 16: 1 ff., 25-27 before 2 Cor. 6:14- 
us, there is no difficulty in appreciating how two let- f r ' ag ^uV er 
ters written at no great interval to the same church, 
by the same author, should, when subsequently pub- 
lished, be copied as one whole. This granted, we 
shall find it the easier to account for the strange frag- 
ment 6 : 14-7 : 1, which interrupts the connection of 
6 : 11-13 with 7 : 2-4, without any affinity of subject. 
It may be hazardous to identify it with the lost 
letter referred to in 1 Cor. 5: 9-13, * but one may at 
least say that such a requirement as 2 Cor. 6: 17-7: 1 
is singularly capable of just the misinterpretation 
Paul here complains of. 2 

Paul's side of the Corinthian correspondence con- 
sisted, then, of four letters : (1) 2 Cor. 6 : 14-7 : 1 
plus, calling for separation from heathen pollutions, 
referred to in 1 Cor. 5 : 9 and answered by the Co- 
rinthians with a request for further explanation as 
to conjugal relations with heathen and d8<i>\66vTa. 
(2) Our 1 Corinthians. (3) The painful letter of forced 
self-commendation, 2 Cor. 10 : 1-13 : 10 plus. (4) Our 
2 Corinthians, less the exceptions noted. 

The storm and stress of the first period are over in The Epistle 
the great letter by which the Apostle to the Gentiles ^ ^ns 
prepares for a new basis of mission work in the centre 
of the world-empire. It is early in 55 a.d., toward 

<L5iK7i0£ls of 2 Cor. 2 : 5-8, 10. In general support of our view 
see especially McGiffert, Apost. Age, p. 316-320, and Kennedy 
in Expositor for September and October, 1897 ; in opposition, 
Zahn, Einl. i, § 20. 

1 So Hilgenfeld, Franke, and Whitelaw (Classical Review, 
1890, p. 12, 317 f .). 

2 Cf. also 6 : 14 with the first item in the letter of inquiry 
apparently sent in reply (1 Cor. 7 : 1-17), and vs. 16 with 1 Cor. 
3 : 16 f. 



96 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

the end of the three months' stay in Achaia (Acts 
20: 3; 1 Cor. 16: 6 1), which the timely repentance of 
the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 10:6; 2:6-9) had at 
last enabled Paul to make " to their building up and 
not to their casting down " (2 Cor. 1 : 23-2 : 1 ; 
13:2, 10). The great peace offering is ready (Rom. 
15:26-29). The Grseco-Syrian world is evangelised 
"from Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum." When 
Paul has " sealed this fruit " of his Greek churches in 
Jerusalem, he must seek the larger field of the great 
Latin West, whither his daring hopes have soared 
"these many years" (vss. 19-24, 28; cf. Acts 19:21; 
2 Cor. 10: 16). But Rome is no virgin field. Antioch 
and even Ephesus, in some degree, were preoccupied 
territory on Paul's first coming. At Rome, also, 
according to its own most trustworthy traditions 1 the 
seed had been self-sown ; and with Paul it was a point 
of honour, if not a stipulation involved in the Jerusa- 
lem agreement (Gal. 2 : 9), " not to glory in another's 
province in things ready to hand," or "build on 
another's foundation" (2 Cor. 10:13-16; Rom. 
15:20 f.). Sad experience had taught him, indeed, 
how indispensable it would be to forestall misrepre- 
sentation (Rom. 3:8); and while it might be safely 
assumed that Gentile influences would be at least as 
strong in Rome as at Antioch (Acts 11:20, 26), it 

1 Ambrosi aster : "In the times of the Apostles Jews were 
living at Kome in pursuit of their business ; such of them, 
therefore, as were believers impressed on the Eomans the con- 
fession of Christ with retention of the Law . . . whose faith is 
commendable, since without seeing any miracles, nor any of the 
Apostles, they accepted the doctrine of Christ, albeit in Jewish 
form." Not improbably the decree of Claudius — reported by 
Suetonius to have " expelled the Jews from Rome for their 
incessant rioting provoked by one Chrestus " (cf. Acts 18 : 2) — 
was really due to agitations in the Synagogue over the new 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 97 

was at least equally certain that the omnipresent 
Judaiser would be there at his old occupation (Phil. 
1 : 17) ; while for the friendly disposed, " weak " or 
"strong" (Rom. 14:1; 15:1), it was in the highest 
degree desirable to present in advance of his coming 
a general outline of his doctrine, not as if he would 
instruct incompetents, but by way of mutual under- 
standing and reciprocal helpfulness (1 : 11 f . ; 15 : 14 f.). 

The Epistle may be logically arranged as follows : — Logical 

analysis. 

i. Salutation and Epistolary Thanksgiving and Prayer, 
1:1-7, 8-17. 

ii. Doctrinal Section. The gospel Paul would 
preach as the power of God unto salvation, 1 : 18- 
11 : 36. 

1. God's Conquest of Evil by Good in the Universe. 

(1) Justification. 

a. Gentile and Jew had failed of righteousness and 
were under the wrath of God, 1 : 18-3 : 20. 

b. The propitiatory death of Christ furnished a 
divine means of universal pardon, 3 : 21-31. 

c. Relation of the new dispensation to the Mosaic; 
a fulfilment of the Abrahamic promise, c. 4. 

d. Result of justification by faith ; a new humanity 
starting from Christ, as the old from Adam; the 
dispensation of law incidental, 5:1-11, 12-21. 

(2) Sanctification. The superlegal morality of 
spiritual living. 

a. Freedom from the Law is attained only by death 
to sin; the experience of a justified soul, cc. 6, 7. 

b. Results of the triumph of the Spirit in human 
life glorified and made eternal. The creation attains 
its goal with the achievement by the elect of the 
divine ideal, c. 8. 

2. God's Working in Human History. Tlie Choos- 
ing of Israel a Means to Redemption of all, cc. 9-11. 



98 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

a. The Messianic Inheritance was given to Israel, 
though not in the sense of physical descent, and with 
constant turning to the Gentiles, so that the para- 
doxical condition — Israel obdurate, the- Gentiles 
accepting — is in accord with Scripture, and also with 
the superiority of God to race distinctions, cc. 9, 10. 

6. But the paradox will soon disappear. Ulti- 
mately, the very incoming of the Gentiles will be, as 
in prophetic times, a provocation to Israel to acknowl- 
edge their Messiah. Doxology, c. 11. 

iii. Practical Section. Ethical application of the 
doctrine. 

a. The rational sacrificial worship of reciprocal love 
and service, c. 12. 

b. The Christian's relation to the social order; good 
citizenship, c. 13. 

c. His relations to the ecclesiastical organism; the 
duty of Christlike accommodation to the overscrupu- 
lous will solve the points of disputed obligation, 14 : 1- 
15:13. 

iv. Epilogue. Personal explanations, plans, and 
greetings. Farewell, 15 : 14-33. 

Appendix. A Letter of Commendation introducing 
the Deaconess Phcebe, and various fragments, 
16:1-16, 17-23, 25-27. 

Occasion, Paul's introductory statement (1 : 1-17) of the occa- 

C nd r content s * on anc ^ P ur P ose °f hi s letter explains its character 
and content. Romans is of the first importance as an 
exposition of Paulinism, much less important than 
Galatians or 1 and 2 Corinthians as a source of con- 
temporary history. In unperturbed and orderly 
completeness, yet here and there with impassioned 
ardour, the Apostle presents his "gospel" of the 
" revelation of a righteousness of God by faith unto 
faith " (1 : 17), and of a people of promise, who are 



LETTERS TO COBINTH AND HOME 99 

the heirs of eternal life. Chapters 1-11 form the 
theoretical part; chapters 12-15 are practical. Again, 
chapters 1-8 explain Paul's religion as against 
Judaism; chapters 9-11, his view of God's providen- 
tial purpose as related to Israel's national preroga- 
tive. 

It is postulated that the wrath of God overhangs Paul's 
the guilty world, the culpable ignorance of the heathen Gos P e1, 
being only less inexcusable than the sin against light 
of the Jew; though his light is still to be reckoned an 
advantage, since it gives him at least the knowledge of 
sin (1:18-3:20). To meet this condition of uni- 
versal conviction the salvation foreshadowed in the 
Law and the Prophets has come through the pure 
grace and love of God. The Messiah, Son and agent 
of God, came and strove unto death against sin. Only 
in view of this could free forgiveness be given to sin- 
ners even " without works of the Law," and hence above 
all distinctions of Jew and Gentile, if once for all 
they unite themselves with their Messiah in his 
struggle unto death. Without it there would be real 
or apparent laxity on God's part (3:21-31). Mes- 
siah's death is thus seen to be "propitiatory," "for 
our sins, according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. 15:3; 
Is. 53:1-11; cf. Acts 8:32-35). The act by which 
the convicted and repentant sinner avails himself of 
the mercy of God, proclaimed in and by the Messiah, 
is faith, the same quality which in Abraham was 
made the basis of promise, the ground of justification, 
before the Law was given (4: 1-5: 11). The universal 
forgiveness thus made possible to all who " die with 
Christ unto sin " becomes an actual redemption of the 
spiritual " seed of Abraham " to eternal life, by God's 
further act of Messianic grace in the impartation of 
his Spirit, restoring the supremacy of spirit over 
flesh, a supremacy lost through the inheritance of sin 



100 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Relation of 
Jew and 
Gentile. 



and death devolved upon all sons of Adam. The sense 
of this loss it was the real function of the Law to pro- 
duce (5: 11-7: 25). As incarnate vehicle of the life- 
restoring Spirit, in which he himself triumphed over 
death, Christ is to humanity a second Adam, agent of 
a spiritual new creation, wherein even nature partici- 
pates, being ultimately restored to that subordination 
to the "sons of God" originally intended by the 
Creator (8:19-23; cf. Gen. 1:26 f. and Heb. 2:5-9). 
This sublime precreative purpose of God, to make 
himself a holy people endowed with eternal life, " con- 
formed to the image of his Son," is the key to revela- 
tion, including that in Christ, and is the unshakable 
ground of our triumphant hope (c. 8). 

Subordinate to this eternal purpose of election is 
the providential relation in history of Jew and Gen- 
tile, the former first blessed for the fathers' sake, 
then rejected, save a remnant, because of their own 
perversity; the latter now welcomed to Israel's 
inheritance, though ultimately, as Paul hopes and 
believes, the now hostile mass of Israel will be impelled 
by very jealousy to return to its Messiah (cc. 9-11). 
Such is Paul's exposition of "the general tenor of the 
Scriptures." 

The practical duties which flow from this insight 
into the divine plan are such as characterise the 
Spirit given by Christ. It implies the law of love 
and mutual service (c. 12). It implies obedience to 
the present political order, and to social morality 
(c. 13). It implies consideration of the "strong" for 
the " weak " in the disputed matters belonging to the 
present relation of Jew and Gentile in the Church 
(14:1-15:13). 

The letter ends with the epistolary matters of 
15 : 14-33 whose touching relation of the circum- 
stances and farewell we have already reviewed. 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 101 

The vexed question as to conditions presupposed in Conditions 
the Roman church 1 is probably unanswerable for the at Rome - 
reason that Paul himself clearly has before his con- 
sciousness not local and specific, but general condi- 
tions. That both Pauline and Petrine elements were 
present is both a priori probable and clearly implied 
in chapters 14, 15. But Paul himself varies. If he is 
concerned to show that Some is really in his province, 
then there is no question of the Gentile character of 
the community (1:5, 6, 13-15). In 11:13-32 the 
arguments are directed explicitly and exclusively to 
Gentiles. If he thinks of the elements whose 
religious training (7 : 1) and experience (7 : 4-6), anti- 
pathies (3:5-8; 11:1, 11) and sympathies (3:1-4, 9; 
9:1-5; 10:1, 2), whose habitual attitude toward his 
gospel (6:1, 15; 7:7) he so well knows, he addresses 
his readers as Jews (2:1, 17-27), recognises their 
Jewish prejudices, tactfully meets their moral and 
religious objections, and removes their misunderstand- 
ings and suspicions. 2 

If the argument of Lightfoot, 8 from the type of Rom. 16 a 
names found in Eoman inscriptions, could really con- flttefof 
vince us that chapter 16, the letter of commendation commenda- 
of the deaconess Phoebe, was originally addressed to 
Rome, and not Ephesus, as internal characteristics 
rather indicate, this chapter would present an excep- 
tion to the rule of absence of local and specific knowl- 
edge in Romans. But how can it really belong with 
the letter to Rome? Had Paul's entire company of 

1 A Jewish majority — Gentile majority — Proselyte Jewish 
Christian minority according to various authorities. See Holtz- 
mann's Introd., and Vincent, Student's New Testament Hand- 
book, p. 74. 

2 Holtzmann, Einl. s , p. 234 f . 

3 Commentary on Philippians, p. 169 ; enlarged on by Sanday 
and Headlam, Comm., p. 422. 



102 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

helpers suddenly emigrated thither, Prisca and Aquila 
at their head? 1 Yet in 2 Tim. 4:19 Prisca and 
Aquila are back again in Ephesus, and Epaenetus, who 
comes next, is " the first fruits of Asia " (cf . 1 Cor. 
16: 15). Paul has affectionate, personal greetings for 
a host of friends, including "kinsmen," "fellow-pris- 
oners," "fellow-workers," "apostles in Christ before 
him," even one whose mother has been a mother to 
him (vs. 13) ; he knows the households where they 
gather, and their individual work (vs. 12) and relation- 
ships. The churches of Achaia also join in the salu- 
tation as they cordially commend their sister from 
Cenchrese, the port of Corinth. But even the Corin- 
thian friends who stand about Paul appear equally 
well acquainted; Timothy first of all, then three 
unknown Jewish brethren, then Tertius, who is serv- 
ing as amanuensis, throw in a greeting, followed by 
Gaius (1 Cor. 1 : 14) and Erastus (2 Tim. 4: 20). Such 
close relations at this time with Eome would be unac- 
countable. Yet everything points to the time and 
place when the great epistle, which ends at 15 : 33, was 
written; so that the "epistle of commendation" (cf. 
2 Cor. 3 : 1), though a separate letter, may well have 
been dictated to the same amanuensis at the same 
sitting. 2 But we have evidence, both internal and 

1 The reply of Sanday and Headlam, Milligan (s. v. Epsene- 
tus, Hastings' B. 2>.), and others to Renan's argument, that it 
" rests on three names only out of twenty-six," assumes that 
he appeals to none save such as can be connected with Ephesus. 
But it appears that besides Prisca, Aquila, and Epametus, Paul 
must have been intimately associated with at least Andronicus, 
Junias, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Rufus, and his mother, 
all of whom, consequently, must have gone to Rome from some 
unspecified place in Paul's field of labour. Ten names indicate 
a different place from Rome, three of them define it as Ephesus. 

2 If the names should be deemed conclusive evidence of a 
Roman destination, Rom. 16 might better be taken as a product 



to Ephesus. 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 103 

external, that not all which in our texts follows after 
chapter 15 was originally addressed to Rome. It may- 
be that our thanks are due to some unknown Corin- 
thian copyist, whose zeal led him, after completing his 
real task, to append what more he found before him in 
the same hand, though of a different and more familiar 
character, including fragments of a separate letter. 
That which remains shows it to have been addressed Addressed 
to a church endeared to Paul by years of arduous, but 
richly fruitful labour, amid a host of helpers; a church 
probably of Asia (vs. 5), where he had been impris- 
oned (vs. 7), where were Prisca and Aquila, who had 
laid down their necks for his life (vs. 4; cf. 1 Cor. 
16:19; 2 Cor. 1:8-11), where there were also, how- 
ever, " division and occasions of stumbling," pretended 
servants of Christ who "served their own belly," and 
violent opposition of Satan (vss. 17-20; cf. 1 Cor. 
16:9; 2 Tim. 2:15 ff . ; Acts 20:29; Eev. 2:2, 6, 
etc.), pretence of wisdom, without moral earnestness 
(vs. 19; cf. Pastoral Epistles and 1 John j)assim) against 
which the church must be fortified by an understand- 
ing of the great mystery revealed in Christ of the 
eternal purpose of God in creation and redemption 
(vss. 25-27; see on Eph.). This church can scarcely 
be other than Ephesus. 

The wide acknowledgment won in modern times by 
Schulz's theory of Rom. 16 as such a fragment, 1 is 
largely due to the support of textual evidence. Even 
Hort 2 cannot believe that the doxology, 16 : 25-27, 

of the unknown period assumed as that of the Pastoral Epistles, 
when Paul might have such knowledge of conditions in Rome ; 
cf. vs. 18 with Phil. 3 : 18 f. and vss. 25-27 with Tit. 1 : 1-3, and 
note vs. 7. 

1 Schulz (1829) was followed by many, including more 
recently Lipsius, Weizsacker, and McGiffert. 

2 See for the textual discussion the essays of Lightfoot and 



104 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

which in some manuscripts is wanting, in others vari- 
ously placed, genuine as it is, could ever have belonged 
in the letter to Borne. The R. V. rightly omits verse 
24. On the other hand, the second century text which 
The doxol- ended the epistle with 14 : 23, or with the doxology, 
fr g a y gment her 16:25-27, appended at that point, 1 certainly cut off 
too much, 2 whether from doctrinal prejudice (Mar- 
cion) or possibly through variant tradition. The 
question is too abstruse for details, 3 but textual evi- 
dence alone will prove that early editors of Romans 
were embarrassed by a surplus of material in these 
closing chapters. 4 Perhaps the disordered fragments, 5 
16 : 1-16, 17-20, 21-23, 25-27, of a simultaneous lost 
letter to Ephesus, appended by the copyist at Corinth, 
were recognised as unconnected with the main epistle 
when this form came to be compared with that pre- 
served at Rome. The influence of this fact, combined 
with Marcion's arbitrary mutilation 6 of chapter 15, 

Hort, Journ. of Philol. ii, iii, reprinted in Lightfoot, Biblical 
Essays, pp. 287-374. 

1 So Marcion, as reported by Origen and Tertullian, also cod. 
Ainiatinus and cod. Fuld. 

2 14 : 23 is an impossible ending, and the appending of 16 : 
25-27 is no real improvement. 15 : 3-6 looks like a duplicate 
of 7-13, as if a discarded page had been accidentally included ; 
but 15 : 1 f., 7-13 is indispensable to c. 14, as 15 : 14-33 is indis- 
pensable to 1 : 10-15, and to the epistle as a whole. 

3 Fuller discussion in my art. in Journ. of Bibl. Lit. for 1899. 

4 Rom. stood last in the early canon of Paul's letters to the 
Seven Churches (Murat. Can., p. 50). This position may help 
to explain the fragments added in c. 16. 

5 Verses 17-20 cannot belong to Rom., which neither displays 
knowledge of local conditions, nor assumes authority ; nor to 
c. 16 as it stands. Verses 25-27 form an anacoluthon. No place 
at all can be found for them. There is affinity with Rom., 
but more with Eph. (cf. Rom. 8 : 18-39 ; Eph. 3 : 5 f., 9 : 20 f.j 
Tit. 1 : 2 f.). 

6 Origen "dissecuit." 



LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 105 

inight lead to a limited currency of the form lacking 
chapters 15, 16. The longer form, however, would 
soon triumph, not merely because of the invariable 
tendency of longer texts to supersede briefer rivals, 
but because of the heretical taint which, in this case, 
could not fail to cling to the shorter. 1 

1 On Eom. see especially Sanday and Headlam, Internat. Com- 
mentary Series, pp. xiii-cix ; also Godet's Commentary (Engl. 
2 1892) and J. Morison's three monographs on Rom. 3, Eom. 9, 
and Rom. 6. On 1 and 2 Cor. see Meyer's Commentary, 5 1869 
(Engl. 1884), and Godet's (Engl. 1886). It is needless to repeat 
references to the special articles in standard Bible Dictionaries 
and Encyclopaedias such as the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 
and Cbeyne's Encyclox>ccdia Biblica and to special treatises in 
well-known commentaries covering the entire N. T., such as the 
Pulpit Commentary or The Expositors. See above, p. 79. 



CHAPTEE Y 

THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 

The Caesar- The long and, to Paul (Bom. 15 : 25-33), momen- 
uTa C period tous P er i° c l on which so full a light is shed by the 
of silence. record of a companion (Acts 20-28), affords us not a 
word from his pen. 1 Whether Paul's hopeful confi- 
dence (Kom. 15:29) in a removal of misunderstand- 
ings and reunion of the church by this visit was 
justified, we must judge by the tone of his subse- 
quent letters. 

Here it is not merely the disappearance of the hith- 
erto constant need of mediating between the " strong " 
and the " weak " on the matter of " the pollutions of 
idols," and of all traces of further real danger from 
the Judaisers, 2 which convinces us that Paul was 
not disappointed; but more especially the note of 
triumphant joy in the unity of the Church character- 
istic of the letters which immediately follow, and 
which in Ephesians is dominant, rising repeatedly 
into prolonged rhapsodies (1:3-14, 18-23; 2:13-22; 
3:5-11; 4:4-16; 5:25-30; cf. Col. 1:18-25). 

The common occasion to which we owe the three 
connected letters, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, 

1 As to the view which places the writing of Eph., Col., 
Phil em. in Csesarea, see above, p. 55. 

2 Phil. 1 : 18 shows their malignity in Eome to be harmless ; 
3 : 2 ff. is a recapitulation of former warnings. In 18 f. it appears 
that he is speaking not because of conditions in Philippi, but 
because of past experience ; cf . 3 : 19 with Rom. 16 : 18. 

106 



THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 107 

is best seen in Philemon, the engaging note of Paul to Occasion of 
a personal friend and fellow-worker, bespeaking a andcom- 
kindly reception for the bearer, Onesimus, Philemon's panion 
runaway slave, whom Paul would gladly have retained epls es ' 
in his own service ; for in the comparative freedom of 
his Roman imprisonment (Acts 28 : 30 f . ; cf . 24 : 23) 
he had both won him to the faith, and begun to love 
him as his "very heart," his "child begotten in his 
bonds." With a gentle playfulness (vs. 11) he pleads 
with Philemon to treat Onesimus "no longer as a 
slave, but a beloved brother in the Lord." Paul 
engages personally to repay any loss incurred through 
Onesimus, but hints that his own scrupulousness in 
returning the runaway should meet the Christian 
return of renunciation of ownership by Philemon; 
though Paul will not enjoin it, knowing that Philemon 
will do even beyond the letter of the request (v. 21). 

The household includes an Apphia, Philemon's 
wife, and Archippus, his son, besides a "church" 
among the retinue of clients, freedmen, and slaves. 
In Col. 4 : 9, 17 ; Philem. 2, it appears that Archippus 
is minister of this church, which is one of the two or 
more (Col. 4 : 15) in Colossae founded by Paul's present 
Colossian fellow-prisoner, Epaphras (Col. 1:7 v.L). 
Hence, Philemon will have been converted in Ephesus 
(Philem. 19; Col. 2:1; cf. Acts 19:10). 

Paul is in company with Timothy (Philem. 1) and Circum- 
Epaphras, who is greatly exercised for the Colossians p^ 68 
and for the adjoining churches of Hierapolis and 
Laodicea. Aristarchus of Thessalonica (Acts 20 : 4), 
another fellow-prisoner, Mark, who also is leaving for 
Proconsular Asia, and Jesus Justus, three Jews who, 
in contrast with the rest (cf . Phil. 1 : 15-18 ; 2 : 21), are 
a help and comfort to Paul, are with him. Demas, 
as yet still faithful (cf . 2 Tim. 4 : 10), and Luke, a 
"beloved physician," two Gentile fellow-workers, also 



108 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

send greetings (Philem. 23 f. ; Col. 4: 10-14). Tychi- 
cus of Asia (Acts 20: 4) and Onesimus are the bearers 
(Col. 4:7-9). Paul is hoping soon to be released 
and to visit Asia in person (Philem. 22; cf. Phil. 
2:24). 

The absence of any mention in this group, Ephe- 
sians, Colossians, Philemon, of the earthquake which, 
according to Tacitus (Ann. 14 : 27), reduced Laodicea, 
in 60 a.d., to ruins (Eusebius, however, dating the 
overthrow of all three cities of Col. 4 : 13 in 64), con- 
firms our early dating of Paul's imprisonment in Eome 
(58-60 a.d.), for his arrival cannot have been recent, 
his correspondents being informed in general as to his 
circumstances. 
Analysis of It is noteworthy that even so brief a letter as 
Ft^genuine- P n ^ emon conforms to the regular epistolary forms, as 
ness. follows : — 

i. Salutation, 1-3. 

ii. Epistolary Thanksgiving and Prayer, 4-7. 

iii. Principal Subject (commendation of Onesimus), 
8-22. 

iv. Greetings and Benediction, 23-25. 

Baur himself half apologises for the really mon- 
strous suggestion that it is the work of an ecclesias- 
tical forger of the second century, inditing a romance 
in the interest of his views on the slavery question. 
Fortunately, to-day not even the necessity of acknowl- 
edging the genuineness of the connected elements of 
Colossians can restrain the most radical Tubingen 
critics from recognition of its inimitable genuineness. 
The connection of Colossians with Ephesians is so 
intimate that we must discuss their occasion and 
content together. 

The emphatic position of the contrasted pronouns in 



THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 109 

Col. 1:9; Eph. 1:15; 6:21/ with, some other data Eph. and 
indicates that Paul had received a letter from the r e °pheg e t0 
Colossians, probably including messages from the letters, 
adjoining churches of the Lycus Valley (2:1; 4:16; 
cf . Eph. 1 : 15) ; for Colossians was accompanied by 
another letter which would reach Colossee from Laodi- 
cea, and the two were to be exchanged (Col. 4:16). 
Colossians, accordingly, will have supplemented the 
generalities of this circular letter. Eor the latter was 
designed for churches of which Paul had even less 
personal knowledge than of Colossse (Col. 2:1; cf . 
1:7 f.), and could not therefore be made adequately 
specific in application to special conditions at Colossse, 
of which Paul knew through Epaphras (Col. 4:12 f.). 
Now it is a strong support for the identification of 
Ephesians with this circular, which was to reach 
Colossse "from Laodicea," that its outline, thought, 
and even much of its phraseology are identical with 
Colossians except for the paragraphs Col. 2 : 1-3 : 4 
and 4 : 9-18, which are respectively a reply to local 
heretics and Paul's greeting to local friends. In 
Ephesians the thought appears in expanded form. 

This common plan is as follows : — Analysis of 

the two 
i. Salutation, Eph. 1 : 1 f. =Col. 1 : 1 f. 
ii. Epistolary Thanksgiving and Prayer, Eph. 1:3- 
3: 21 = Col. 1:3-29. 

a. Thanksgiving for God's precreative choice of his 

1 Thus Eph. 6:21: "Iva S£ eiS^-re /cat vp.e?s to. kclt' £fj.{, rl Trpdacro), 
must be rendered in strictness : "But that ye may be informed 
of my affairs, ye also of mine (sc. as I have been of yours)." 
Similarly 1 : 15 icayd> . . . virkp ifiuv, and Col. 1 : 9 kclI -rj/xeTs . . . 
virep vfiQv, " / (toe) too . . . on your behalf." The information 
conveyed is also alluded to in Eph. 1:15; Col. 1 : 4 (but cf. 8), 
6 ; 2 : 5-7, 16, 20 ; 4 : 10 ; the expressions of sympathy are met 
in Eph. 3 : 13 ; 6 : 22 ; Col. 1 : 24 ; 2 : 2 ; 4 : 8. See the art. by 
H. B. Swete, Expositor, December, 1898. 



110 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION 

people in the person of their Head, and revelation in 
him of this solution of the mystery of being, Eph. 
1 : 3-14. (In Col. 1 : 3-8 for the good report of Epaph- 
ras as to the Colossians.) 

b. Prayer for their mental enlargement to appre- 
ciate the greatness of this divine calling, which 
historically is revealed in the adoption of a united 
people of God, Jewish and Gentile, whose separation 
has been overcome by Christ, Eph. 1:5-23; 2:1-10, 
11-22 = Col. 1:9-23. 

c. (Peculiar to Ephesians, but cf. Col. 1:24-29 
with Eph. 3:1-13.) Repetition of the prayer, with 
special digression for the benefit of such as may not 
be familiar with Paul's "revelation of the mystery." 
Doxology, Eph. c. 3. 

iii. Doctrinal Section (peculiar to Colossians). 

Refutation of the theosophic speculations and 
asceticism of the false teachers at Colossse by an 
application of the "Mystery of God," who, before 
creation, chose Christ to be head of the universe, in 
whom we died to this world and rose to the heavenly, 
Col. 2 : 1-3 : 4. (Much of the doctrine included in 
Ephesians under § ii.) 

iv. Practical Application, Eph. 4: 1-6: 20= Col. 
3:5-4:6. 

a. (Peculiar to Ephesians.) Hence, the charis- 
mata are to be used for edification of Christ's body, 
Eph. 4:1-16. 

b. The fleshly life must be superseded by the 
Christ-life with its characteristics of purity and love, 
Eph. 4: 17-5: 21 = Col. 3:5-17. 

c. And individual propensity curbed by the mutual 
subordinations of the divine social organism, Eph. 
5:22-6: 9 = Col. 3:18-4:1. 

d. General exhortation to prayer and watchfulness, 
Eph. 6: 10-20= Col. 4:2-6. 



THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 111 

v. Personal Epistolary Matters and Farewell, Eph. 
6: 21-24= Col. 4:7-18. 

Paul may almost be said, in Eph. 1 : 3-3 : 21 ( = Col. Character 
1 : 3-29), to have " cast his remarks into the form of of Eph^ Ct 
a prayer," for the false teachers are wholly in the 
background (5 : 6), and the reason for the special sub- 
ject of thanksgiving and prayer is only perceived by 
comparing Colossians. Paul aims at a deeper ground- 
ing of the faith of his correspondents by an adequate 
apprehension of the cosmic character of the redemp- 
tion. Christ and the Church, mutually complementary 
as male and female in the ideal Adam of Gen. 1 : 27, 
or as head and body, both together in their ideal 
supremacy the complement of the Creator, give the 
key to the problem of the universe. The long hidden 
mystery of God's design in creation (Eph. 3 : 9-11 ; 
Col. 1 : 26 f . ; cf . Rom. 16 : 25-27) may be expressed 
in the one word euoWa (Eph. 1:5, 9; Col. l:19), a the 
preordaining choice by the Creator of a Being comple- 
mentary to himself (Eph. 1:9-11; Col. 1:15-19). 
For in behalf of, unto, and through this Son, the 
archetypal Man, made in God's image, the entire 
creation, heavenly and earthly, personal and imper- 
sonal, was produced (Gen. 1:27 f.) that ultimately 
it might be subject unto him (Eph. 1:22; cf. 1 Cor. 
15 : 27 f . ; Heb. 2 : 5-8). But this precreative choice of 
the Son making him "the first-born of all creation 
(Col. 1 : 15-17) involved as his complement a redeemed 

1 For a discussion of the sense of this technical term, as con- 
nected with the title 6 'AyaTnjrds (=6 'E/cXeXeY/x^os Lk. 9 : 35) 
here (Eph. 1 : 6) and in Matt. 12 : 18 ; also with Lk. 2 : 14 (" the 
men rijs evdoKias 1 ' 1 i.e. God's elect), the Voice from Heaven, 
Mk. 1 : 11, also Matt. 17 : 5; Mk. 9 :7 ; Lk. 9 : 35; 2 Pet. 1 : 17, see 
my art. "On the aorist 61)56/070-0," Journ. of Bibl. Lit.., 1897. 
Cf. also Acts 9 : 22 (Western text). 



112 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Christ and 
his people 
heirs of the 
universe. 



The Colos- 
sian heresy. 



people as his bride, the Church (Eph. 5:23-32). 
Christ, as manifested in the glorified body, must be 
identified with this archetypal, ideal Man, and is 
actually subduing all powers both of earth and heaven. 

The Church, chosen by God in him before the 
foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4 f.), is this bride; 
a new people of God's own possession, joint heirs 
with Christ of the world (Eph. 1: 18-22; Eom. 4: 13; 
8:17; Gal. 4:7; Heb. 1:2, etc.). This people of God 
is not Jewish only, but as now seen in the working out 
of the redemptive process, both Jewish and Gentile 
(Eph. c. 2; cf. Rom. cc. 9-11; Gal. 3:26-29). The 
evoWa, therefore, or primeval purposive choice of the 
Creator, contemplating "the Beloved," and us his 
redeemed people "in him," is the key to the eternal 
mystery of creation and redemption; and it has been 
placed by Jesus in the hands of his Apostles and 
saints (Eph. 3:5; Col. 1:27). Christ, its head, is the 
explanation of creation; for the universe, visible and 
invisible, material and personal, is both "from him 
and unto him " (Col. 1: 15-19; cf. 1 Cor. 8:6). The 
Church is the explanation of God's redemptive work- 
ing in history : for it is its intended outcome ; the body 
of Christ, complementary to him as both together are 
the complement (TrX^pw/Ma) of God (Col. 1 : 19 f . ; cf . 
1 Cor. 3:22 f.). This comprehensive outlook over all 
time, all space, all being, is Paul's revelation of the 
mystery of the eternal purpose of the Creator which 
he purposed in Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:9-11); and he 
rightly judges it to be worthy of most strenuous prayer 
on behalf of his readers, that their mental and spir- 
itual capacity may be enlarged to take it in (Eph. 
1:17-19; 3:14-19; Col. 1:9; 2:1-3). 

After this sublime cosmology, overburdening and 
bursting through the framework of doxology and 
prayer with which he had begun, Paul introduces in 



THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 113 

Col. c. 2, the special adaptation of his thought to local 
conditions. Agents of a Judaistic (vs. 16) theosophy 
had found congenial soil for their proselytising work 
in Phrygian Asia, ancient home of mysticism and 
eclectic theosophy. Their commendation of circum- 
cision (cf. vs. 11, "ye also"), the Law (vs. 14), Sab- 
baths and other holy days (vs. 16), recalls the Judaisers 
of Galatians. But we have something more here than 
mere Pharisaic nomism. There was discrimination 
of meats and drinks with an ascetic instead of cere- 
monial purpose (vss. 21-23). The Old Testament 
ordinances were supplemented by " precepts and doc- 
trines of men," which Paul calls "will-worship," as 
he would not call the prescribed worship of the Law. 
These observances they commended as properly due to 
the angelic and elemental Powers * through whom the 
Law was given (cf. Gal. 3:19; 4:1-3, 8-11; Acts 
7:42 f., 53; Heb. 2:5), and with whom the adept 
entered into communication (vs. 18), so that the unique 
lordship of the Son of Man was obscured, if not 
denied (vss. 8-10, 19). "We see, in fact, the begin- 
nings of that amalgamation of Judaism with Gnos- 
ticism, which, entering perhaps by the avenue of 
Essene 2 sects, was already seeking to rival or supplant 
Christianity in the religious conquest of the world 
(Tit. 1:10-16). 

The knowledge that such conditions were present Eph. reflects 
may have affected the more general letter in its treat- |\tions. C ° n ~ 

1 The " Elements of the world " both here and in Gal. 4 : 3, 
8 f. are semi-personal, consistently with the general type of 
Oriental cosmologies ; for a description see Rev. 4 : 6 f. and cf . 
Herm. Vis. 3 : 13, 3 and the passages adduced by Everling, 
Paulin. Angelol. u. Damonol., 1888. 

2 See Lightfoot's Colossians, § ii, The Colossian Heresy, and 
Dissertations 1-3 on Essenism. Also Friedlander's Der vor- 
christliche Gyiosticismus der Juden, 1898. 



114 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

ment of the theme (cf . Eph. 4 : 14 ; 5 : 6) ; * but the 
author only interjects at this point his rhapsody on 
the organic unity of the Church, whose current of life 
is the Spirit flowing from the ascended Christ 
(4:1-16). 

The practical section in both epistles (Eph. 4 : 17- 
6 : 20 ; Col. 3 : 1-4 : 6) is specially close in connection. 
Mutual love and purity belong to the Christian's 
spirit as against the darkness and lust of heathenism, 
with joy of the inward man as against enjoyment for 
the outward (Eph. 4: 17-5: 21 = Col. 3:1-17). The 
domestic relations are to be held sacred, as a type of 
the organism of the divine kingdom (Eph. 5 : 22-6 : 9 = 
Col. 3 : 18-4 : 1), and constant watchfulness and 
prayer, including prayer for Paul, are enjoined (Eph. 
6:10-20 = Col. 4:2-6). Tychicus, the bearer, will 
give them news from Paul (Eph. 6: 21 f. =Col. 4:71). 
Original Thus, the difference between the two epistles is 

address of obviously one of Paul's relation to the readers. In 
Ephesians Paul thinks of the universal Church; in 
Colossians, of the church of Epaphras. The complete 
absence of any local colour in Ephesians would be 
enough in itself to discredit the title " to the Ephe- 
sians, " to say nothing of 1 : 15, " Having heard of 
your faith," 3:2; 4:21, 22, "if indeed ye have 
heard," and other positive indications that Paul is 
addressing strangers (cf. Acts 20:18 ff., 31). These 
phenomena are borne out against the early tradition 
by the textual evidence, which shows conclusively 

1 So the reiterated representation of Christ and his people as 
superior to all angelic and demonic Powers 1 : 10, 20-22 ; 2 : 1 f., 
6 ; 3 : 10, 14 ; 4 : 9 f. ; 6 : 12. In Col. this is made even more dis- 
tinct. The highest ranks of angels owe to Christ both their 
creation and redemption, 1 : 16 f., 20 ; 2 : 8-10, 18 f. ; for with 
Paul the drama of redemption includes angels as well as men, 
2 : 15 ; cf. Eph. 3 : 10 ; 1 Tim. 5 : 21 ; Heb. 1 : 2-14 ; 2 : 5-8. 



Eph. 



THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 115 

that the copies in circulation during the second and 
third centuries had not the words iv 'E<£eo-a> in 1:1. 
Certain " recent manuscripts " referred to by Basil in 
the latter half of the fourth century are the earliest to 
which the words can be traced. The ancient reading 
is interpreted by most of the Fathers and by some 
modern scholars " the saints who are " (really such), 
or " who are also faithful." Other modern scholars, 
beginning with Archbishop Ussher (1650), supposed 
the Apostle to have left a blank, the letter having been 
intended for a number of churches, and the bearer 
being authorised to insert in each locality the proper 
name. All attempts to translate without a geographi- 
cal term are excluded by the fact that Paul does not 
address this letter, nor others, to classes distinguished 
by moral character, but to localities (6:21; cf. Col. 
1: l). 1 The blank theory is too modern, and does not 
account for the textual history. 

The surest clew is in the fact that in Marcion's text To the 



Laodiceans 



— by far the earliest of which we have any knowledge a] 

— the epistle was entitled " To the Laodiceans." Ter- others, 
tullian, who informs us of the fact, insinuates that 
Marcion was giving himself airs as a diligentissimus 
explorator; but it is not likely that Marcion drew 

the inference from Col. 4: 16, which does not speak of 
an epistle to, but an epistle from Laodicea. Probably 
a variant tradition was current in his Phrygian home. 
Proconsular Asia was certainly the region to which 
Tychicus bore the letter. Hence, Ephesus would be 
visited on the way. Col. 4 : 16 is highly favourable to 
the idea that Laodicea was one of the churches for 
which it was intended (cf. Gal. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1). 
In that case, Hierapolis and Colossse would be included 

1 Against T. K. Abbott, Internat. Crit. Commentary, p. 2. 
The interpretation adopted by him makes ofoiv superfluous. 



116 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Early attes- 
tation of 
Eph. 



Genuine- 
ness. 



in the perhaps unfamilar geographical term now lost, 
for which h 'E^eVa) has been substituted in the later 
texts. The substitution, first in tradition 1 and ulti- 
mately in the text itself, was of course due to the 
prominent position of Ephesus, from whence copies of 
the letter would generally be derived. 

We have seen that Ephesians is surpassed by 
scarcely another New Testament writing besides 
1 Corinthians in explicit attestation from the earliest 
times; for the allusion in Ignatius ad Eph. 12 
(ovfjLfjLvo-TaL), while precarious in itself, becomes a 
probable allusion to Eph. 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9, etc., when 
the wide circulation of this epistle from the very 
beginning is considered. 2 " From this evidence," says 
Abbott, " it is all but certain that the epistle already 
existed about 95 a.d. (Clement), quite certain that it 
existed about 110 a.d." 

All this without taking account of its admitted 
influence on New Testament writings. For granting 
that Col. 4 : 16 may refer to some unknown letter, and 
not to this which so well suits the case, Holtzmann 
himself would be the last to deny that 1 Peter, John, 
and 1 John show familiarity with its doctrine of Christ 
and the Church. 3 But with the example of Hebrews 



1 Even the Fathers, who are ignorant of any iv 'E^crcp in the 
text, regard the letter as written to Ephesus. 

2 For we have indisputable employment in Clement of Rome, 
c. 36 (cf. Eph. 1 : 19), c. 38 (Eph. 5 : 21), c. 46 (cf. Eph. 4 : 4-6), 
c. 64 (cf. Eph. 1:4, 5), probable use in Aid. 4 : 10, 11 and Barn. 
19 : 7 (cf. Eph. 6 : 9, 5), also in Ign. ad Eph., c. 1 (Eph. 1 : 1 ff. ; 
5 : 1), c. 6 (Eph. 6 : 11), c. 9 (Eph. 2 : 20-22), and ad Polyc. 5 
(Eph. 5 :29), unquestionable use in Polyc. ad Phil., c. 1 (Eph. 
2:5,8, 9) and c. 12 (Eph. 4 : 26) , with increasing familiarity 
in later writers. 

3 We may cite in general the "high Christology " of all the 
Johannine writings as depending on Eph. and Col., butcf. Eph. 
2 :21 f. with Jn. 2 : 19-21 ; Eph. 4 : 10 with Jn. 3 : 13 ; Eph. 5 : 



THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 117 

before us, it will not do to say that the age from 75-100 
to which Holtzmann assigns it was incapable of pro- 
ducing so splendid a reproduction of Pauline thought. 
Against so able and careful a scholar one cannot ven- 
ture to say that some such masterful unknown genius 
might not have elaborated a pseudo-Pauline letter by 
a process of minutely imitative modelling on the basis 
of Colossians, and subsequently have expanded the 
model itself by loans from his copy, so as to produce 
the appearance of dependence on both sides. To put 
his twin letters in circulation without exciting a ripple 
of suspicion, even when Ephesians was so promptly 
seized on by the Valentinians in support of Gnostic 
speculations, may also be deemed a possibility. But 
to find a motive sufficient to induce a teacher of such 
fervid genius to condescend to such slavish toil, even 
if to that age less dishonest than to ours, when 
without any such false pretence his doctrine would 
be scarcely less acceptable and incomparably more 
unfettered, this is a task indeed! It behooves us to 
scrutinise the grounds which are held to make this 
needful. 

1. The vague historical situation. But this ceases Objections 
to be incongruous or incomprehensible as soon as the ^General- 
corrupt reading iv 'E<£eo-o> is abandoned and the circular ising char- 
character of the letter recognised. Local colour should ac er * 

be wanting if, as assumed, this be the letter "from 
Laodicea." 

2. The objective way in which the author speaks 2. "The 
of himself and " the Apostles " (2 : 20; 4 : 11). But in ipJ stl e Si » 
so far as it differs from the Pauline manner (cf . 1 Cor. etc. 

3 : 10 ; 12 : 28) it may be accounted for by the lack of 

13 f. with Jn. 3 : 19-21, and see Intern. Comm. on Eph. and Col., 
T. K. Abbott, 1897, p. xxviii. The basis of N. T. cosmological 
Christology can be nothing else but Pauline (cf . Heb. 1 : 1-2 : 15 
with 1 Cor. 15 : 24-28, and Kev. 22 : 13 with Col. 1 : 15). 



118 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

concrete relations. In 3: 1-3, 7; 4:1; 6:20 we have 
indeed the effort to create snch a concrete relation, 
and that by virtue of the claim to a position among 
the consecrated Twelve (3: 5), 1 as a sharer in the great 
revelation; nay, as having been peculiarly entrusted 
with an essential part of its content. But with proper 
rendering this cannot be deemed un-Pauline (cf . 1 Cor. 
9:1 ff . ; 15:3-11), unless we ignore Paul's reverence 
for his office and longing for solidarity with the 
Twelve in the view of Christians to him unknown. 
Neither is there vanity in 3 : 4, which if it refers to 
2 : 11-22 is only concerned with a divinely granted 
insight, not the result of Paul's own powers, nor 
overwrought modesty in 3:8, considering the inten- 
tion of the paradox. 
3. The high 3. The exalted Christology might seem incredible 
Christoiogy. at g0 early a per i 0( j ^ ut f or fae simple fact that in 
every essential feature it is corroborated in undeni- 
ably genuine passages. Disregarding the parallels in 
Colossians, as disputed, we find the same conception 
of Christ as preexistent in 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2: 5-11; 
as the image of God, archetype of redeemed human- 
ity, in Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; as be- 
ginning and end of creation in association with God 
in 1 Cor. 8:6; 15 : 22-28 ; as lord of all created being 
in heaven and earth and under the earth, triumphant 
over angelic and demonic Powers in Phil. 2: 9-11; 1 
Cor. 15 : 24 ff . ; as agent of a cosmic redemption in 
Eom. 8: 19-22. And this is but the negative half of 

1 This verse is the equivalent of vs. 10 and Col. 1 : 26. "The 
saints" as a whole are entrusted with the revelation, but more 
especially those particular "saints who are Apostles and proph- 
ets" (&ywi &Tr6o-To\oi ko.1 irpo<p-/)Tai), and hence officially pro- 
claim it. To Paul it had been specially revealed (Gal. 1 : 15 f.). 
It would not be true to say that the other Apostles had not also 
received it, though less unreservedly (see above, p. 64). 



THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 119 

the argument; for in 1 Cor. 1:24, 30; 2:6-10, 16 we 
have hints that Paul also has a philosophy wherewith 
he could put to shame the speculations of the Corin- 
thians, had he deemed them prepared for it, — a phi- 
losophy which was concerned with Christ as the Power 
(Swa/us) of God and the Wisdom (o-o^ta) of God. It 
consisted of a revelation of the "hidden mystery of 
God which he foreordained before the worlds unto our 
glory " (1 Cor. 2: 7; cf. Rom. 16: 25-27; Eph. 1: 4-12; 
3 : 9-11), and set forth the divine plan in creation and 
redemption (1 Cor. 2:9-11). Again, what have we 
in Romans as a whole but this same theme of the 
revealed purpose of God in creation and redemption 
(11 : 31-36) ? Here the full extent of what is meant 
by the cosmic atonement is but darkly hinted in 
chapter 8, and the union of Jew and Gentile in the 
new people of God in chapters 9-11 is only a hope. 
But in Ephesians, with the supplemental parallels of 
Colossians, Paul opens wide to us, as no imitator could, 
the doors of that comprehensive cosmic philosophy of 
his faith. 

4. When Paul expressly undertakes the " revelation 4. Apoca- 
of the mystery of Christ, which in other generations and^expres- 
was not made known unto the sons of men," nay, was sions. 
" hid in God who created all things, " even from " the 
Principalities and the Powers in the heavenly places " 
(cf. Rom. 16:25-27; 1 Cor. 2:6-8; 1 Pet. 1:12), we 
should need no second hint to seek in the current 
apocalyptic literature, to which Paul was no stranger 
(2 Thess. 2: 39; 2 Cor. 6: 14; 12: 2), and whose inter- 
est was as truly cosmological as eschatological, 1 for 
the analogies which will explain both his thought 
and language. In point of fact, we find everywhere 
in this literature the conception that the world was 

1 E. H. Charles, s. v. "Apocalyptic Lit." Hastings' B. D. 



120 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

created for Messiah and his people, and will ultimately 
be subjected to him. It is based upon Gen. 1:27 f. 
This purpose of creation, which is therefore its alpha 
and its omega, beginning and ending, God concealed 
from human philosophy, and even from angels, who 
vainly crave to know the secret of their creation and 
destiny. He revealed it to Enoch, Moses, and other 
chosen prophets and seers. 1 In Christian apocalyptic 
Christ is of course the " Mediator of the new covenant " 
(Heb. 8:6; cf . Ass. Mos. 1 : 1), and the doctrine as- 
sumes the form: "For the sake of the Church the 
universe was created. " 2 Eemembering what literature 
underlies Paul's cosmology, we shall not be surprised 
if in Ephesians there are a number of "un-Pauline" 
expressions, particularly in this special field. 8 We 
shall rather be unable to explain how an imitator could 



1 Eph. 1 : 4-11 is a reproduction, in places almost verbal, of 
the thought of Assumptio Mosis 1 : 14-16 (14-30 a.d., E. H. 
Charles) : — "God hath created the world on behalf of his 
people. But he was not pleased to manifest this purpose of 
creation from the foundation of the world, in order that the 
Gentiles might thereby be convicted, yea to their own humilia- 
tion might by their (cosmogonic) arguments convict one 
another (cf. 1 Cor. 1 : 27 ft). Accordingly he designed and de- 
vised me [Moses], and prepared me before the foundation of 
the world that I should be the mediator of his covenant" (cf. 
Gal.l: 151; 3:19f.; Heb. 8 : 6; 9 : 15; 12: 24; Eph. 3: 2-9, etc.). 
Similarly 2 Esdr. 6 : 56-59 ; 7 : 11 ; 9 : 13 ; Apoc. of Baruch 14 : 
18, 19 ; 15:7; 21 : 24. Asto the hiding of the mystery from the 
angels see Slav. Enoch (Charles, 1-50 a.d.) 24 : 2 ; 40 : 3, and cf. 
Eph. 3 : 10 ; 1 Pet. 1:12; Matt. 24 : 36. 

2 Hernias, Vis. 1 : 1, 6 ; 2 : 4, 1, cc. 4, 5 ; Mand. 12 : 4 ; cf. Rev. 
21 : 7, v. I., Just. M. Ap. 1 : 10 ; 2 : 4, 5, etc. 

3 The most conspicuous are iv ro?s iirovpavlois, SiafioXos, Hpx^v 
tTjs O-ovalas rod afpos, eh trdcras rots yeveas toO alwvos tQv aluivuv, 
epya dKaptra, etc. Cf. Holtzmann, Einl. 3 , p. 259. The preexist- 
ent treasury of deeds 2 : 10 is an apocalyptic trait, cf . Slav. 
Enoch. 53 : 3. 



THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 121 

have introduced the peculiar Pauline Sio five times, 
twenty words unknown to the New Testament save in 
the greater Pauline Epistles, with only seventy-six 
that can in any sense be considered unusual to Paul. 1 
Nay, we have the positive information from Origen Paul used 
that in the apocalyptic passage 1 Cor. 2:6-16 the a P° cal yP se - 
" Scripture " quoted by Paul (vs. 9) is from the Apoca- 
lypse of Elias. If now on the authority of Epi- 
phanius, 2 the Scriptural (\eyei) quotation Eph. 5:14 
is also taken " from the Apocalypse of Elias, " we shall 
not only find it easy to explain a few peculiarities of 
language and style, but very hard to explain how an 
imitator should hit upon the same obscure, unnamed 
book for the further development of Paul's cosmology, 
which Paul himself had in mind when writing to the 
Corinthians that he could, if he chose, " speak God's 
wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been 
hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds 
unto our glory, which none of the Rulers of this world 
(apxovTes tov aiwvos tovtov) knoweth " (cf . Rom. 16 : 25— 
27; Eph. 3:3-5, 9 f . ; 6:12 and the passages from 
Slav. Enoch, Ass. Mos., etc., above cited). 

In Philippians the situation is again changed. Paul Character, 
is not writing to correspondents more or less indirectly anTanalysis 
related to him, but to his intimates, and the most of Phil, 
beloved of all his churches (1:3-8; 4:15). We are 
not surprised to find it the most epistolary in form 
of all his letters, abounding in special and local refer- 
ences, which, on the one side, have conduced to the 
abandonment of former attacks upon its genuineness, 
but, on the other, involve us in unanswerable prob- 
lems as to the precise historical situation. 

1 Phil, alone has thirty hapaxlegomena. 

2 Cf. Iren. 4 : 22, 1 with Eph. 4 : 9 and Just. M. Trypho 72. 



122 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

The structure of the epistle is as follows : — 

1. Salutation and epistolary thanksgiving and prayer, 
1 : 1-11. 

2. Report of Paul's condition and prospects, 1 : 12-26, 
passing in 27-30 to 

3. Doctrinal exhortation to unity through imitation 
of the mind of Christ, whose exaltation was through 
humbling himself; thus Paul's work will stand in any 
event, 2 : 1-18. 

4. Personal business, with commendation of Timothy 
and of Epaphroditus, 2 : 19-30. 

5. Doctrinal section. Warning against the "con- 
cision." Righteousness by the Law vs. righteousness 
by faith, c. 3. 

6. Exhortations, personal business, and acknowledg- 
ment of gift. Farewell, 4:1-9, 10-20, 21-23. 

Date. Lightfoot's argument from the relation of Philip- 

pians to Komans in style and language for a date 
anterior to the group Ephesians, Colossians, Phile- 
mon, 1 has won the assent of Hort, but, as this distin- 
guished scholar himself admits, 2 of so few beside that 
it need only be mentioned alongside of the similar 
one for the late date of Galatians. Not a year or two 
of time, but circumstance, subject, and literary rela- 
tion chiefly modify an author's style. Per contra the 
letter gives clear evidence of a decided change for the 
worse in Paul's situation. The references to his bonds 
in the letters to Asia are quite compatible with the 
relative freedom enjoyed during the " two years " of 
Acts 28: 30 f., though one of the occasions of the let- 
ters from Asia he is answering would seem to have 

1 Essay on the "Order of the Epistles of the Captivity" in 
Comm. on Phil. 

2 Rom. and Eph. Prolegomena, 1895. 



THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 123 

been a disheartening report of his affairs (Eph. 3: 13; 
6:22; Col. 1:24; 4:8; cf. Philem. 22) as looking 
toward an unfavourable issue. In Philippians Paul 
is still hopeful (1:25; 2:24), but far from buoyant, 
and his hope is fixed not on earthly helpers, nor on 
human probabilities of release — though, for the com- 
fort of his beloved Macedonians he argues that his in- 
dispensableness to them will be a motive even with 
the Disposer of all events. The difference between 
Philem. 22 and Phil. 1:19-30; 2:12-18 is that in 
the former Paul is preparing friends for news of his 
release, in the latter for news of his execution. 

Nor is this a sudden, unheralded change, nor mere Circum- 
subjective fluctuation of the Apostle's hopes. Paul p^ es of 
has been through a period not only of "sorrow" 
(2:27), but of actual physical "hunger" and "want" 
(4 : 12-14), which Epaphroditus, bearer of a belated 
gift from the Philippians, had been able to supply only 
at the risk of his life (2 : 30; 4 : 14, 18). For in Phi- 
lippi they have not only had time to hear of this 
calamitous turn in the affairs of their Apostle, and to 
respond to it by despatching the aid which previously 
they had lacked opportunity to send (4 : 10), but had 
heard also of what, but for the courage and determina- 
tion of their messenger, might have proved a " sorrow 
upon sorrow." For while in pursuit of his commis- 
sion, Epaphroditus had been taken "sick nigh unto 
death" (2:261, 30). 

Paul has still friends around him, — few, but faith- 
ful. But his preaching has ceased, of which his 
enemies think to take advantage, not knowing the 
Apostle's faith in the Master's promise (Matt. 10:18 
and parallels) that his very bonds should preach for 
him (1:13), and in his own principle that "we can 
do nothing against the truth, but for the truth" 
(2 Cor. 13 : 8 ; cf . Phil. 1 : 15-18). Thus " the things 



124 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Later than 
end of Acts. 



Composite i 



■which happened unto " him, certain very definite, and, 
obviously to the Philippians who have heard of them, 
calamitous further restrictions of his liberty, have, 
to Paul's noble optimism, "fallen oat rather unto the 
progress of the gospel." But the crisis, involving life 
or death (1 : 20-24), is very near ; so near that, but for 
their anxiety, Paul would have retained Epaphroditus 
as go-between. As it is, he will send Timothy, his 
last remaining faithful adherent," forthwith, so soon 
as I shall see how it will go with me." 

This situation cannot reasonably be brought within 
the two years of unhindered preaching, with which 
Paul began at Pome in his own hired house of Acts 
28 : 30 f . Since then new hardships have come. But 
these and all the world of toil and conflict are fast 
receding from view. The Apostle repeats again and 
again his loving " farewell " (3:1; 4:4), but he has 
ceased to " mind earthly things " ; he is " pressing on 
toward the goal unto the prize of his high calling," 
to "know Christ and the power of his resurrection, 
and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming con- 
formed unto his death if by any means he may attain 
unto the resurrection from the dead" (3: 10-14). 

Whether we have in Philippians more than one 
letter of this farewell correspondence is a subordinate 
question. 1 The breaking of all the waves of criticism 
about 3 : 1 ff . is an indication, as Holtzmann says, of a 
probable hidden reef. We have at least in 2 : 1-18 
and chapter 3 two distinct doctrinal sections, each 
followed by an ending of the usual epistolary char- 
acter, 2 : 19-30, and chapter 4, and the abruptness of 
the change at 3 : 1 ff . remains to be explained. The 

1 Polycarp's allusion to "letters" is either a plurale tantum 
(cf. 11 : 3), or possibly includes 1 and 2 Thess. as also Macedo- 
nian. If more than one letter had survived to Polycarp's day it 
would have survived to ours. 



THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 125 

Judaisers in Koine have sunk beneath Paul's feet in 
1 : 18. Has his peace of mind been suddenly broken 
again by news of their inroads at Philippi? There 
is no mistaking the portrait of 3 : 2 ft. in comparison 
with 2 Cor. cc. 10-13. " Hebrew " descent, " circum- 
cision," "righteousness of the law," "glorying in the 
flesh," "enmity to the cross" (cf. Gal. 6:12-14), — 
these traits are familiar; but are we to suppose that 
it is such men as followed Barnabas and Cephas at 
Antioch, or, in fact, any Christian Jew in fellowship 
with the Apostles, of whom Paul now writes (vs. 19), 
"whose end is perdition, whose god is the belly, and 
whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly 
things"? 1 We are reminded rather of a letter of 
Paul to Ephesus (Rom. 16 : 18) and of another Apostle 
who writes to the churches in Asia to beware of the 
"false apostles" (Eev. 2:2), men of the "synagogue 
of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do 
lie" (3:9; cf. Phil. 3:2 1); though here libertines 
and Judaisers are differentiated. Paul's antidote for 
the poison is the old rule (3 : 1, 16) of conformity by 
faith to the death and resurrection of Christ. 

If Phil. 3 f . be a separate letter it will have shortly Relation of 
preceded chapters 1, 2 (cf. 4:21 f. with 2: 20 f.) as an P arts - 
acknowledgment of the gift conveyed by Epaphroditus 
(4:18), and answer to the Philippians' letter (4: 10). 
Paul's final teaching then (2: 1-18) will have supple- 
mented the brief exhortation of 4 : 1-9 with that incom- 



1 Libertinism could find no shadow of sympathy in the mere 
narrowness of the converted Pharisee still clinging to the Law. 
These are not "the circumcision," but (to substitute Paul's 
own term for a Judaism which sought to rival Christianity in 
its influence on the heathen world by conforming Mosaism to 
heathenism) they are "the concision." We may well employ 
the word in place of the cumbrous expression " syncretistic 
Judaism." 



126 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

parable picture of "the mind of Christ," 2:5-11, 
according to the saying, "He that humbleth himself 
shall be exalted" (Matt. 23:12). For the ideal hu- 
manity is not of him who was made in the image of 
God, yet counted it a matter to be seized by robbery 
(apTraynov) to be "as God, knowing good and evil" 
(Gen. 1:27; 3:5), but of a "second Adam," who 
being, in a higher and truer sense, " in the form of 
God, humbled himself and became obedient even 
unto the death of the cross." 

The Commentaries of Lightfoot on Phil, and on Col. and 
Philem. are supplemented by the posthumous Notes on Epistles 
of St. Paul, 1895, with comments on Eph. extending only to 1 : 
14. See also Hort's Kom. and Eph. Prolegomena, 1895. The two 
volumes by T. K. Abbott on Eph. and Col. and by M. R. Vin- 
cent on Phil, and Philem. in the International Commentary 
Series give the most recent special discussions in English, but 
should be compared with those in the Bible Dictionaries, Ency- 
clopaedia Brittanica, and New Testament Introductions. For 
German literature see Vincent (op. cit.), pp. xxx and xl sq., as 
to Phil. ; and Abbott (op. cit.), pp. xxxv-xl and lxii-lxv, as to 
Eph. and Col. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE SECONDARY CANON OF PAULINE EPISTLES: THE 
PASTORAL EPISTLES AND HEBREWS 

The distinction of the Mnratorian Canon between Early classi- 
Paul's letters to the Seven Churches, and those which, ca lon ' 
though " written from personal feeling and affection, 
are hallowed nevertheless in the respect of the Catholic 
Church for the arrangement of ecclesiastical disci- 
pline, " is by no means peculiar to that document, and 
may well go back even to Marcion's day, for the typus 
septiformis ecclesice is well known to early Latin 
writers. We have seen that Hebrews also, when in 
danger of losing its ancient position of respect, found 
friends in the East who could discover reasons for 
attaching it at the end of this secondary Pauline 
canon in spite of its un-Pauline characteristics and 
the tradition declaring it non-apostolic, which in the 
West was still too strong to be disregarded. 

Marcion cannot have been ignorant of the Pastoral 
Epistles, which are known to Ignatius and Poly carp; 
nor would he have scrupled to eliminate anything 
obnoxious to his beliefs if they had occupied to his 
mind the same position as the primary Pauline canon. 
His omission was not due to their private character, 
for he retained Philemon, which the Church classed 
with them as also private. It may perhaps be ex- use made of 
plained in part by the use to which we are told they *^ e . Pastoral 
were put in the churches, and the resultant treatment 
of the text. For his "Scripture" Marcion required 
127 



128 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

from the Church, only its " Gospel " and " Apostle." 
He had no use for its " orders of ecclesiastical disci- 
pline " mainly directed against teachers of his own 
type, and without any such pretences of being a " dili- 
gentissimus explorator," as Tertullian imputes to him, 
he might well regard this somewhat mixed mass of 
directions, regulations, exhortations, and denuncia- 
tions, in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus as, on the whole, 
falsely purporting to come from Paul. If such was 
Marcion's judgment it agrees with the great majority 
of modern scholars, though the present tendency is 
toward fuller justification of the Church's tradition. 
Critics generally admit (i) that fragments at least of 
genuine letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus are here 
present ; * (ii) that neither the regulations of church 
order, nor, in their general traits, the heretics 
opposed, nor the mode of opposition, are altogether 
out of relation to the later Pauline period; (iii) that 
many whole phrases, not merely in the epistolary 
parts, but even in the portions regarded as interpolated 
into the genuine historical framework, are Pauline, 
whether borrowed from the primary canon or derived 
from tradition. On the other hand, the writing of 
three such letters as these, as they stand, by the 
Apostle, is declared to be incompatible with the his- 
torical situation presupposed, and with their features 
of language and style. Accordingly, the prevailing 
efforts of criticism are in the direction of separation 
of those elements which may be taken to have formed 

1 Nearly all critics admit at least 2 Tim. 1 : 1 f., 15-18 ; 4: 9- 
21 as genuine (so Hausrath, Pfleiderer, von Soden, et al). Many- 
divide these genuine elements between two letters of Paul to 
Timothy and find traces of others in 1 Tim. 1 : 1 ff. ; Tit. 1 : 1, 4, 
12-15. See e.g. McGiffert, Ap. Age, p. 408, who regards only 
1 : 13 f . ; 2 : 14-3 : 17 ; 4 : 3 f. as spurious in 2 Tim. ; but two 
letters are combined. 



THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 129 

the original letters from tlie material — Pauline or 
otherwise — which early church editors have inter- 
polated to adapt these private notes to the public uses 
of "ecclesiastical discipline." l 

A brief summary of the contents will show that Logical 
criticism has some ground for declaring the Pastoral ana ysis 
Epistles, especially 1 Timothy, to be characterised in 
part by the desultory, general, sometimes incoherent 
structure of ecclesiastical compilations rather than 
Paul's close-knit, logical sequence. The structure of 
1 Timothy is as follows : — 

i. Salutation, 1:1, 2. 

ii. Charge to refute heretics, 1:3-20 [vss. 12-17, 
Thanksgiving of Paul for his "trust"]. 

iii. Order in church services, and appointment of offi- 
cials, cc. 2, 3. 

iv. Duties of the minister: against false teaching, 

in organisation, and administration of the Church, and 

the instruction of various classes. Farewell, cc. 4, 5, 

6:l-21a [vss. 11-16, 20, 21, personal charge with the 

"trust"], 216. 

In 2 Timothy we have : — 

i. Salutation, thanksgiving, and exhortation to loy- 
alty to the Apostolic trust, 1 : 1 f ., 3-14. 

[ii. Personal conditions, 1:15-18; perhaps dis- 
placed.] 

iii. Doctrinal section. Charge to loyalty continued. 
Faithful subordinates to be chosen as against un- 
worthy teachers, 2:1-4:8 [2 : 20-26, mirror of " the 
Lord's servant"]. 

1 The fundamental critical work on the Pastoral Epistles is 
that of H. J. Holtzmann, 1880. The most thorough and recent 
attempt at documentary analysis, summing up the work of pred- 
ecessors, is by Hilgenfeld, arts, in Zts. f. w. Th., 1897. ~E. H. 
Hesse's monograph, JEntstehung d. N. T. Hirtenbriefe, 1889, 
seems to have suggested the view of McGiffert. 

K 



130 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

iv. Personal data, greetings, farewell, 4 : 9-18, 19- 
21, 22. 

The Epistle to Titus has the following structure : — 

i. Salutation, 1 : 1-4. 

ii. Directions in church appointments in view of he- 
retical teachers, 1 : 5-16. 

iii. Directions to the minister as to his own adminis- 
tration and teaching, 2 : 1—3 5 3: 11. 

iv. Personal business and farewell, 3 : 12-15. 

Content of After address and greeting (1:1 f.), 1 Timothy 

l Tim. plunges at once into an attack upon heretical teachers 

of a mythologising, antinomian type (3-11), as against 
whom Paul thanks God for the sound doctrine in- 
trusted to him, though once a persecutor (12-17). 
Timothy must be heir to this trust (18-20). Chapters 
2-3 turn to matters of church order. The proper 
course as to intercession in public worship (2 : 1-7), 
conduct of the women (8-15), office of bishops (3 : 1-7) 
and deacons (8-13) is set forth as necessary for 
Timothy's instruction in case of delay in Paul's com- 
ing (14-16). Chapter 4 returns to denunciation of 
the heretics. As against their ascetic, encratite prac- 
tices and mythologising superstitions (1-10), Timothy 
is exhorted to preach " the wholesome doctrine " as a 
disciplined and authoritative teacher (11-16). His 
duties toward the various classes in the Church are 
defined, in his relations to the elder and younger of 
both sexes (5: 1 f.) in enrolment of "widows " (3-16), 
in ordination of elders (17-22) [here a disconnected 
direction as to Timothy's diet (23-25)], and in amelior- 
ating the relations of slaves to masters (6: 1 f.). The 
heretical teacher is described, vaunting the disputa- 
tious sophistries he preaches for money (6 : 3-10), as 
against the true man of God (11-16). A special charge 
for the rich (17-19) and to Timothy to guard "the 



THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 131 

trust " against the " profane babblings " of Gnostics, 
closes the epistle (20 f . ; cf. 2 Tim. 1 : 13 f . ; 2 : 16). 

The second epistle begins with a similar appeal to Content of 
Timothy to "guard the good deposit," prefaced in 2Tim - 
this case by the usual Pauline thanksgiving and prayer 
(1:1-14). After a disconnected item referring to 
kindness shown the writer by the Ephesian Onesi- 
phorus when in Eome (1 : 15-18), Timothy is exhorted 
to carry on the work of Paul (2: 1-13). He is given 
the pattern of the Lord's servant 1 as against the 
" profane babblings " and " foolish and ignorant ques- 
tionings" of the heretics (14-26). Keproof of these 
impostors is drawn from the Repentance of Jannes 
and Jambres, 2 a work perhaps included among the 
"Scriptures inspired of God," which are of service 
for this, and which expressly foretell, by the Spirit, 
their coming, as a feature of the last times (c. 3; cf. 
1 Tim. 4:1 ff. and 2 Thess. 2:3). Timothy, accord- 
ingly, must be a faithful preacher, evangelist, and 
successor to Paul, whose martyrdom is immediately 
at hand (4 : 1-8) . The letter concludes with epistolary 
matters (4:9-22). 

The same burden is laid on Titus. Paul is the Content of 
trustee of a divine message (1: 1-4). Titus was left Tlt ' 
in Crete to provide an ecclesiastical organisation ca- 
pable of defending " the wholesome doctrine " against 
unruly talkers and deceivers, the worst of whom are 



1 The incongruity of 2 : 20-26 with the context consists in 
the fact that here the pattern is furnished Timothy apparently 
for application to himself (22 f.), whereas the context (2 : 2, 
14-19 ; 3 : 1-13 has to do with the type of faithful teachers he 
must select (2 : 2) . Moreover, the faults warned against in 
2 : 20-22 cannot be imagined in Timothy. 

2 This work was known to Pliny, who died in 79 a.d. Origen 
(on Matt. 27 : 8) is our informant of the source of Paul's 
reference. 



132 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Jews, though our author fails to distinguish between 
the asceticism of one type of Gnostic (1 : 14, 15) and 
the licentious and superstitious speculations of the 
other (1 : 5-16). 

Besides appointing suitable elders, or bishops 
(1 : 5-9), Titus must teach all classes in the Church, 
young and old of both sexes, slaves and masters (c. 2) ; 
and bid them show the effect of the gospel of the 
divine love in orderly behaviour to the world around, 
shunning the disputatious superstitions of the heretics 
(3:1-11). The epistle ends with a few words of 
business (3:12-15). 
Historical The point of departure for determining the historical 

^Tim! 011 m situation implied in these letters must necessarily be 
2 Tim. c. 4; for whether we consider their content as 
a whole, combating heretical tendencies by means of 
a wholesome tradition ("the good deposit") in the 
hands of a well-disciplined ministry; or their closely 
related phraseology, it will be obvious that no broad 
separation can be made. The three are certainly com- 
panion letters, and in 2 Tim. c. 4 we have at least 
one clearly defined historical situation. It is essen- 
tially the same as in Phil. 2 : 17, where we have the 
same remarkable metaphor as in 2 Tim. 4:6. Only 
matters have advanced one step nearer the goal of 
martyrdom (Phil. 3:14). The libation is already 
being offered, the course is fully run (4:7). Timothy, 
who was then waiting to be sent " shortly " to Philippi, 
has been despatched. This farewell letter is to com- 
mit to him the good fight Paul has finished (vs. 7 f. ; 
cf . 1 Tim. 6 : 12 if . ). Of those present in Col. 4 : 10-14, 
Luke alone is left. Demas has deserted. Others now 
in Asia also forsook him, though one faithful friend 
from Ephesus has gone to a heavenly reward for the 
courage with which he had made his way to Paul's 
prison and relieved his wants (1 : 15-18). 



THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 133 

With these conditions the tone of 1:1-14; 2:1-13 Consistent 
is thoroughly in harmony. The epistle is the last ^^asa 
legacy to a " beloved child " 1 of a martyr whose only whole, 
treasure is the " good deposit " of the gospel revela- 
tion, a trust greater even than that of the ancient 
oracles of God (Rom. 3:2; 1 Cor. 4:1). 2 Genuinely 
Pauline is the conception of this Gospel as the calling 
of God in the precreative gracious choice of us in 
Christ, a mystery hidden from times eternal, until 
manifested by the shining forth of Christ (1:9 f.; cf. 
Tit. 1:2 f.; 2:11-14; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Cor. 4:4-6). 
Equally inimitable is the Pauline consciousness, pre- 
eminently characteristic of 2 Timothy, that his Gospel 
is a special word of God, a "trust" for the world. 
Nor would the writer of Philippians in transmitting 
this sacred trust, under essentially the same con- 
ditions, have omitted a parallel to the warning of 
Phil. c. 3. The portrait of the false teachers in 2 
Tim. 2 : 14-3 : 17 ; 4:3, 4, while probably interpolated 
(2:19 6-26? 4:3f.?), may therefore be largely gen- 
uine. Eor Paul believed in a "falling away" in "the 
last times " partly on the basis of such " Scripture " as 
underlies chapter 3 (cf. 2 Thess. 2: 3 ff.), and, in the 
main, the apostates must be admitted to resemble the 
"concision" of Paul's day (cf. 2:18 with 2 Thess. 
2:2; 1 Cor. 15:12 and Tit. 1:14-16; 3:9; 1 Tim. 
1:4-7; 4:1-7 with Col. 2:8-10, 16-18, 20-23) far 
more closely than the anti-Jewish Gnostics of the 
second century. 

But in chapter 4 itself we find representations irrec- incompati- 
oncilable with this historical situation. Verses 9, bleelem ents 
11-18, 20, 21a compel us to assume that Paul had 

1 The supposed incongruity with Timothy's age and experi- 
ence thus disappears from this passage. 

2 In 1 : 12 render according to margin (R. V.) comparing 
vss. 13, 14 ; 1 Tim. 6 : 20 ; Tit. 1 : 3. 



134 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

recently been at Troas, Corinth, and Miletus. More- 
over, in spite of desertion by friends he has made a 
successful defence before the Gentiles, and is greatly 
encouraged. 1 If the verses named are inseparable 
from 2 Timothy, they force us to assume that Paul 
was released from his imprisonment in Eome, made 
considerable journeys in Greece and Asia, revisiting 
Ephesus, in spite of Acts 20 : 25, 38, was subsequently 
reincarcerated in Eome, and repeated the experiences 
which, in Philippians, had already led him almost to 
the goal of martyrdom. 

Now, in the absence of any evidence for it 2 outside 
the Pastoral Epistles themselves, such a repetition of 
Paul's "course" is highly improbable, especially in 
view of Acts 20: 25, 38. 2 It cannot indeed be said to 
be insupposable. To the martyr also there sometimes 
comes an unexpected reprieve. Years after he may 
utter a second time his last farewells. But that 
which, under such circumstances, he will not do, is to 
return to his former leave-taking, and, with no refer- 
ence to having used the figure before, borrow thence 
the phraseology for his parting legacy. This is the 
culminating reason 3 for regarding 2 Tim. 4 : 6-8 as 
written from the same captivity as Phil. 2 : 16-18, not 

i With 2 Tim. 4 : 17 f., cf. Acts 23 : 11 and 2 Cor. 1 : 10. 

2 The passage in Clement of Rome, c. 5, is at least ambiguous. 
The mention in the Muratorian Canon of a " journey to Spain " 
rests on Rom. 15 : 28 and is destitute of support in history or 
tradition. 

3 Others of importance are : (i) the extreme improbability 
of Paul's escape from the Neronian slaughter of 64 a.d. ; (ii) the 
situation and presuppositions of the Pastoral Epistles them- 
selves, as e.g. the youthfulness of Timothy, 1 Tim. 1 : 18 ; 4 : 12 ; 
5 : 1 ; 2 Tim. 2 : 22, the limitation of their scenes to the sphere 
of Paul's earlier activity, without mention of Spain ; (iii) the 
impossibility of framing a consistent idea from them of Paul's 
movements or circumstances. 



THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 135 

more than a few weeks later. The consequence is 
unavoidable that vss. 9, 11-18, 20, 21a, 22 b, whose 
whole tone is as different from the preceding as the 
implied historical situation, were written by Paul on 
some much earlier occasion. 1 The only alternative is 
the highly improbable supposition that such data as 
2 Tim. 4: 9-13 were forged out of whole cloth for the 
express purpose of deception. 

The evidence of compilation out of various Pauline Pastorals 
fragments is not surprising in view of the phenomena gpf ir e io t u S er 
of Komans and 2 Corinthians, and would go far to composite, 
explain the historical difficulties confronted when the outside the 
genuineness of the letters in their present form is known life 
maintained. For it has come to be almost universally 
admitted that no place can be found for them within 
the known life of Paul. But thus far we have only a 
clew. It must prove its helpfulness in explaining 
the well-known problems of these epistles before being 
adopted as a theory. 

The difficulties are of three classes : (i) as to his- 
torical situation; (ii) as to the implied ecclesiastical 
organisation and doctrinal development, both orthodox 
and heretical; (iii) as to style and vocabulary. 

(i) One of the two irreconcilable historical situa- 

1 But for Acts 21 : 29 we should say with confidence, Paul is 
writing to some unknown friend (in Macedonia ?) shortly after 
the hearing before Felix, Acts 24 : 1-21 (N.B. vss. 9, 16, 21, and 
cf. 17 f. with Acts 23 : 11, and vs. 14 with Acts 21 : 27 ; 24 : 18). 
Lucht, Overbeck, and J. Weiss (Absicht etc., der Apg., 1898, p. 
39) have thrown serious doubt on the historicity of Acts 21 : 29 
as wrongly explaining the assault. In that case Trophimus 
might really have been left in Miletus sick on this occasion. 
The resemblance of 2 Tim. 4 : 17 f. to 2 Cor. 1:10 suggests rather 
Macedonia, shortly before the coming of Titus (2 Cor. 2 : 12 f.), 
the defences alluded to having been made in Ephesus (Acts 
19 : 38 ; 2 Cor. 1:9; Rom. 16 : 4, 7). The genuine elements of 
Tit. will then be slightly earlier. See below. 



136 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



1. Implied 
relations of 
Paul to 
Timothy 
and Titus. 



tions of 2 Tim. c. 4 is entirely adapted to a known 
situation of Paul's life, and the other to an ear- 
lier, with or without error in Acts 21 : 29. That of 
Tit. 3 : 12 f. is not known, but these verses might 
have been written shortly before 2 Corinthians, when 
Paul (in Ephesus?), unable to count on the loyalty of 
Corinth, was planning to await the outcome in Mace- 
donia and Epirus. 1 But herewith we have reached 
the limit of probabilities. The implications of 1 Tim. 
1 : 3 ff . ; 3 : 14 ff . ; Tit. 1 : 5 ff . are simply improbabili- 
ties, not to say impossibilities, as they stand, whether 
the letters be placed in periods known or unknown of 
Paul's life. A long epistle of every sort of general 
instruction regarding church discipline could not 
possibly be required by Timothy under the implied 
circumstances, least of all when Paul was himself 
expecting to come shortly. And if Timothy had re- 
tpiired instructions as to the appointment of officers 
for the church in Ephesus, are we to suppose that 
Paul had not a single individual whom he could nomi- 
nate in the church founded by himself and diligently 
fostered " by the space of three years " ? Had all the 
elders and bishops who came to meet him at Miletus 
(Acts 20:17, 28) suddenly resigned? 

So with Titus. To say nothing of the fact that it 
is the absentee Paul, after a stay in Crete so brief that 
he has not even appointed elders in the churches, who 
yet must inform Titus of the character of the people 
of his own field — to say nothing of the extraordinary 
indictment of Cretans as a class in 1:12 f., it is in- 
credible that Titus should require at any time subse- 
quent to Paul's acquaintance with Apollos (3 : 13) such 
elementary instruction, especially when it merely sup- 
plements an oral charge, 1 : 5, and is coupled with a 
summons to the presence of the writer, 3 : 12. 



1 See B. D., s. v. "Nicopolis," and cf. Eom. 15: 19. 



THE PASTOBALS AND HEBREWS 137 

In both epistles Paul's relations to these intimate 
fellow-labourers are inconceivable in the known period, 
still more so the later we go. It cannot have been 
needful in a casual letter to Timothy for Paul to 
defend his apostolic calling, as in 1 Tim. 1:12-17, 
nor to assure him when speaking of it that he is 
speaking the truth and not lying, 1 Tim. 2 : 7 (cf . 
Rom. 9:1). On the other hand, the fancy of a forger 
is not likely to have framed the caution as to Tim- 
othy's diet, in 5 : 23. 

(ii) The burden of all three epistles is the for- 2. Author's 
tifying of the Church against the inroads of the stand P° int - 
"concision" of Paul's time. But phrases and repre- 
sentations are present, especially in 1 Timothy, which 
imply fully developed systems of pseudo-Christianity, 1 
closely corresponding to the heresies denounced in 
Jade, 2 Peter, Revelations, 1-3 John, and the Igna- 
tian letters, and delineated for us by Irenaeus and 
other Pathers as the doctrine of Cerinthus, the Jewish 
Gnostic contemporary of John in Ephesus. To this 
the letters oppose (a) the traditional teaching of the 
Church, to which various new terms are applied, such 
as "the pattern of wholesome words," "the words of 
the faith," "the wholesome doctrine," 2 "the doctrine 
which is according to godliness," "the faithful word 
which is according to the teaching " ; (b) ecclesiastical 
organisation and discipline, including not only bishops 
and deacons (Phil. 1:1), but the hitherto unknown 
order of enrolled "widows," or almoners. Both these 
methods are more external and conventional than we 
should expect from Paul. Paul's "gospel" is super- 
seded by the Church's "teaching" (1 Tim. 6:1; Tit. 
1:9; 2: 10), and an advanced officialism testifies to an 

1 So 1 Tim. 6 : 20, implying the use of gnosis as a technical 
term. 

2 Six times. 



language. 



138 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

age much later than that of 1 Cor. cc. 12-14, or even 
of Eph. c. 4, in which the government of the Church 
is a matter of spiritual endowment. These regula- 
tions resemble rather the early manuals of church 
order, such as the At8ax>7, the Apostolic Constitutions, 
etc. Even in 2 Timothy we realise that the charge to 
" the Lord's servant " in 2 : 20 (196 ?)-26 is addressed 
not so much to the real Timothy, as to the ideal can- 
didate for holy orders. 
3. Style and (iii) Along with a number of Pauline characteris- 
tics * in style and language which are hard to explain 
as due to mere imitation, there is a pronounced un- 
Pauline character. This appears in an unusual pro- 
portion of unknown terms, seventy-four words found 
only in 1 Timothy, forty-six more found nowhere 
but in 2 Timothy, twenty-eight more nowhere but in 
Titus, with whole families of words such as o-ox^poveiv, 
o-w$povi£,av and the cognate forms, rare or unknown 
to Paul, new compounds of hhao-Ktiv, oIkos, <£i'Aos, sub- 
stitution of different forms, as e.g iv irao-iv (six times) 
where Paul writes h ttclvti, implying a sudden and un- 
explained change in the Apostle's mode of expression. 
Peculiar phrases appear also, often such as imply 
new modes of thought : evo-e/fto? £,fjv, 2 Tim. 3 : 12 ; Tit. 

1 Observe e.g. the addresses and greetings, the item of per- 
sonal news 2 Tim. 1 : 15-18, the connection in 1 Tim. 1 : 11&- 
13 ; and cf. yovevaiv aireideis 2 Tim. 3 : 2 with Eom. 1 : 30, Kara 
t6 tvayytkibv fj.ov 2 Tim. 2 : 8 with Rom. 2 : 16; 16 : 25, rb evayyi\iov 
•7-7)5 56£t7s 1 Tim. 1 : 11 with 2 Cor. 4 : 4, inaTeiea-dai. in the sense 
of "be entrusted," 1 Tim. 1:11; Tit. 1 : 3. and "be believed," 
1 Tim. 3 : 16 and 2 Thess. 1 : 10 ; and the expression d<popfiT]v 
Sidovai tiv'l 1 Tim. 5 : 14 and 2 Cor. 5 : 12 only (d<pop/j.ri occurs six 
times in the N. T., all in Paul). Note also the allusions to 
Paul's peculiar "mystery of the Gospel," the divine precreative 
ivSoda hidden from past ages but now manifested to men and 
angels in the elect people, 1 Tim. 3 : 16 ; 6 : 14-16 ; 2 Tim. 1 : 9, 
10 ; Tit. 1 : 2 f. ; 2 : 12-14 ; 3 : 4-7. 



THE PASTOBALS AND HEBBEWS 139 

2:12; SiwKcii/ SiKaioa-vvrjv, 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 
cf>v\d(T(TCLv tt]v TrapaOrjKrjv, 1 Tim. 6 : 20 ; 2 Tim. 1 : 12, 14 ; 
irapaKoXovOelv rrj SiSacrKaAta, 1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:10. 
New terms in great number are applied to the heresy, 

e.g. (3ef3r)\oL p.v6oi, p.wpal £rjTr)<rei<;, ypatoSeis fxvdoi, ktX., 

and, on the other side, the phrases already referred 
to as designating "the wholesome doctrine," 1 Tim. 
4:6; 6:1,3; 2 Tim. 4:3; Tit. 1:9; 2:1, 8, 10. 
Herewith must be connected frequent references to 
"faithful sayings," 1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 
2:11; Tit. 3:8, one of which, in commendation of 
"seeking the office of a bishop," cannot well be sup- 
posed current at an early period. References to the 
Old Testament, on the contrary, so characteristic of 
Paul, are conspicuous by their absence. 

As against 133 un-Pauline words we have a striking 
absence of many which seem almost indispensable to 
Paul. Not merely is there no reference to the Church 
as the o-w/Aa toS Xpio-rov, but the very word o-wfia, used 
more than seventy times in the four great epistles 
alone, does not once occur. The whole family of 
iXevOepos is absent, of <$>poveiv, of irpacnreiv (for which 
these letters substitute iroielv), of Te'Aaos, yes, even of 
hep-yew, Trepiaaeveiv and KavxacrOcu. Finally, as evidence 
which Dods admits to be "staggering," there is an 
absolute disappearance of the favourite Pauline par- 
ticles apa, 8l6, Slotl, eiret-Ta, en, t8e, l8ov, pLrjTr<j)<s, O7rcos, 
ovKeri, ovtto), ovre, 7raXtv, ev 7ravTi, 7rore, ttov, uscnrep, and of 
the prepositions dvrt, aXP l > efX-n-poirOev, evEKev, Trapd with 

the accusative, and even of o-w, for which our author 
uses p-erd. 

It is impossible to regard these phenomena as acci- inference : 
dental. They coincide with peculiarities of style and Enfsties t0ra 
correlation of thought, they are connected with a his- have been 
torical situation which belongs to the close of the recast - 
century. They positively demonstrate an un-Pauline 



140 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

element present in all three epistles, but most strongly 
marked in 1 Timothy and Titus. 

A wise conservatism will yield so much as this, 
while refusing as yet to commit itself to any special 
scheme of documentary analysis, or even to the pos- 
sibility of extricating the Pauline from the traditional 
and editorial material. We must simply recognise in 
the Pastoral Epistles a special group " hallowed in the 
respect of the Catholic Church for the arrangement of 
ecclesiastical discipline," but later formed than the 
primary Pauline Canon, and bearing the marks of much 
alteration, interpolation, editorial adaptation to this 
use, mainly on the basis of Paul's great legacy to 
Timothy of his " trust " in 2 Timothy, partly on frag- 
ments of notes to Timothy, Titus, and perhaps others ; 
partly, no doubt, on traditional formulae and teachings 
of the Apostle. They have passed through an experi- 
ence similar to all known compilations of their class, 
a process of more or less unconscious accretion arrested 
only by the stereotyping hand of the Canon-maker. 

Hebrews. The anonymous epistle anciently superscribed "To 

Early treat- ftie Hebrews," was early connected in Alexandria and 
the East with the letters of Paul. Even in the West, 
where the statements of all the Fathers down to the 
fourth century are opposed to Pauline authorship, 1 its 
position in the Canon, when admitted, was next to 
these. This fact may partly account for the popular 
belief in Alexandria which Pantaenus, Clement, and 
Origen successively sought to harmonise with its mani- 
festly un-Pauline characteristics ; for in ancient manu- 

1 Besides Tertullian (see above, p. 33) and the Muratorian 
Canon, both Irenseus and Hippolytus are credibly reported by 
Stephan Gobar (in Photius) to have denied the Pauline author- 
ship. Caius (ca. 200), Cyprian, Victorinus, and others count 
but thirteen Pauline Epistles. 



meiit. 



THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 141 

scripts of the Pauline Epistles the titles ran : " To the 
Corinthians," "Galatians," "Bonians," etc., the 
reader supplying tacitly the words "Epistle of Paul." 

But for the strange decision of the English revisers 
"to leave unchanged the titles given in the Authorised 
Version," we might say, with Bruce, "That the Apos- 
tle was not the author of it is now so generally 
admitted that it is hardly worth while discussing the 
question." 1 Luther, Calvin, and Erasmus were already 
convinced of this ; it was demonstrated in the Intro- 
duction of Ziegler (1791), and the commentaries of 
Schulz (1818), and especially of Bleek (1828). The 
proof rests primarily upon the author's classification 
of himself, in 2 : 3, with those whose relation to Christ 
was that of the second generation; a fact in itself fatal 
to the various attempts of ancient and modern times 
to claim for the epistle even an indirect derivation 
from Paul. 2 Eor it is certainly no translation, but, 
on the contrary, employs the most classical Greek of 
the New Testament in carefully framed periodic struc- 
ture (1:1-4; 2:2-4; 7:20-22; 12:18-21), including 
even word plays (5:8 tfxadev ZiraOev', 9:15-18 SLaOrJKrj; 
10 : 38 f ., 11 : 37, 13 : 14 jxevovcrav /j-iXXovaav) , and para- 
nomasias (5:14; 8:7, 8). 

Moreover, in spite of the author's unmistakable An inde- 
acquaintance with Bomans and 1 Corinthians, if not author. 1 
Ephesians and Galatians, 3 as well, both form and con- 
tent display the sturdiest independence. Even the 

1 B. D., 1899, s. v. "Hebrews, Epistle to." 

2 Including the curious revival of the theory of Stier, 
Guericke (1842), Ebrard (1850), and Delitzsch (1857) by a 
recent writer in the Bibl. World, who has won the support of 
Ramsay (!), Expos., June, 1899. 

3 For the parallel passages see Holtzmann, Einl. s , p. 298, with 
the reference Heb. 10 : 30 below ; also Von Soden, Handcomm., 
p. 2. 



142 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Alexandrian Fathers had observed its un-Pauline style 
and vocabulary, 1 and Jerome the fact that, unlike 
Paul, this author depends exclusively on the LXX. 
version, in apparent ignorance of the original Hebrew. 
The only exception to this rule is the quotation in 
10 : 30, which is borrowed from Eom. 12 : 19. Acquain- 
tance with Philo is at least equally certain, affecting 
not merely the writer's doctrine of the ideal universe 
and creation through the Logos, but even his citation 
of the Old Testament in 13 : 5 in a form nowhere found 
save in De conf. ling., 33. The Alexandrian apocry- 
phon " Wisdom of Solomon " is also employed. 

But the content will show that we have here neither 
Logical an imitator of Paul nor a mere borrower from Hellen- 

analysis. j s ^i c « w i s d m, " but a free combination of the results 
of Pauline theology with the current ideas of Alex- 
andrian-Jewish philosophy, producing a genuinely 
new type of Christian thought. 

The structure of Hebrews is as follows : — 

[i. Address, salutation, etc., wanting.] 
ii. First doctrinal section and application. Christ 
supreme over the universe, higher than all angels, and 
his administration than the Mosaic. Hence, warning 
against failure to enter his "rest" (kingdom), 1:1- 
3:6; 3 : 7-4 : 13 (14-16 transitional). 

1 As an impartial test of the diversity of style Professor 
Rendall cites the connecting particles : " In the Epistles of St. 
Paul etns occurs fifty times, etre sixty-three, wore (in affirmative 
clauses) nineteen, elra (in enumerations) six, el de ko.1 four, 
etirep five, £kt6s el fir) three, etye four, /xrjTrws twelve, /x^/ceTt ten, 
fievovvye three, e&u eighty-eight times, while none of them are 
found in Heb. except e&v, and that only once (or twice) except 
in quotations. On the other hand, S0ev which occurs six times, 
and e&vwep which occurs three times are never used by St. Paul." 
(Theol. of Hebrew Christians, p. 27 ; quoted by Dods, Introd., 
p. 182). 



THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 143 

iii. Second doctrinal exposition. Christ the eternal 
High Priest after the type of Melchizedek, cc. 5-7 
(5:11-6:12 digression for practical exhortation). 

iv. Third doctrinal section and application. Supe- 
riority of the later, eternal form of worship corre- 
sponding to this priesthood, to the Mosaic forms. 
Hence warning to hold fast, 8 : 1-10 : 18; 10 : 19-39. 

v. Fourth doctrinal section and application. The 
nature of faith as insight illustrated from Scripture. 
An encouragement to persevere, cc. 11, 12. 

vi. General practical exhortation, personal news, and 
farewell, c. 13. 

With the general purpose of checking any disposi- Nature i 
tion in his readers toward a Judaising eclecticism or C0Qtent - 
deistic indifference, 1 the author presents the contrast 
of the new revelation with the old, which is primarily 
illustrated in the person of their respective mediators. 
In the one case are subordinate agents, angels and 
powers, which, great as they are, exist only for ser- 
vice to the heirs of salvation ; in the other, the " heir 
of all things," the archetypal Man of God's eternal 
creative forethought, who in "Wisdom" is identified 
with the visible phase of the divine glory, the sub- 
stantive counterpart of the eternal Being (1 : 3=Wisd. 
7:25 f.). Originally the agent of creation, he has 
now become the agent of redemption also, until the 
ultimate subjection of the universe to him is accom- 
plished, chapters 1 and 2. And as in his cosmic func- 
tions Christ is exalted above the angels, to whom the 
present world is subject (2 : 5) and through whom the 

1 See the repeated applications of the argument, 3 : 12-4 : 16, 
6 : 9-12 ; 10 : 19-39 ; 12 : 1-13 : 17. Relapse into Judaism, for- 
merly regarded as the danger threatening the readers, would 
certainly not be described as "falling away from the living 
God," 3:12. 



144 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Law was given, so in the historical process of redemp- 
tion he towers above Moses and Joshua, achieving a 
" rest " for the people of God, of which the " rest " of 
Canaan (Ex. 33:14) was a mere type and shadow; 
the real "rest" of God being that of the ultimate 
creative "sabbath," the period when with the aboli- 
tion of the curse of death the universe is brought to 
the divinely contemplated ideal, c. 4. An exhortation 
to faith and obedience to this living, all-penetrating 
Logos of God, who is the one " with whom we have to 
do," leads over from the consideration of Christ as 
the Sod of Man of Ps. 8, source and goal of creation, 
to the consideration of him in his redemptive work as 
the Son of God, typified in the Messianic priest -king 
of Ps. 110. After a digression (5:11-6:12) urging 
deeper religious insight, the " high priest forever after 
the order of Melchizedek " (Ps. 110 : 4) is elaborately 
interpreted as the ideal and eternal mediator with 
God, of whom the Aaronic priesthood was a mere type 
and foreshadowing. As the Sabbath of God had been 
treated (3: 11-4: 10) as 

The stupendous march 
Of grand eternity, 

so now the Messianic temple is 

The unmeasured arch 
Of yon ethereal sky, 

into whose holy of holies, the actual presence of God, 
Christ has passed with the blood of an efficient sacrifice, 
whereof the Levitical, unable in themselves to cleanse 
from sin, were mere types, cc. 5-10. This section on 
the relation of the Old Testament dispensation to the 
new as temporary and typical, winds up with a second 
exhortation to persistent faith, 10 : 19-39. The third 
section expounds the nature of faith, scarcely distin- 



but to whom 
addressed ? 



THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 145 

gtiishing it from gnosis; for it is set forth as " a faculty 
of the human mind, whereby it can make the future as if 
it were present, and the unseen as if it were visible." 1 
A roll-call of heroes from the creation to Christ, who 
all " endured as seeing him who is invisible," " looking 
to the recompense of reward," and esteemed the pres- 
ent and material at its true pettiness as compared with 
the ideal and eternal, illustrates this definition, and 
leads over to the third and final exhortation to emulate 
this example, considering the nearness of that sublime 
consummation to which all had looked forward, cc. 
11, 12. A few special practical admonitions and epis- 
tolary notes conclude the epistle, c. 13. 

In the form of a letter — for the local allusions in A letter 
6:10; 10:32-34; 13:7, 9, 18, 19, 23 admit no doubt 
that an actual local church is addressed by its teacher, 
now separated from it by special circumstances — in 
the epistolary form whose great capacities Paul had 
demonstrated, we have here one of the grandest of 
sermons. Theologically, the author stands midway 
between Paul and John, master not only of Pauline 
ideas, but of a style and rhetorical finish scarcely 
attributable to any other than one of the type of 
Philo, a Jew versed in the neoplatonism of Alexandria, 
as much at home in its Hellenised Jewish " wisdom " 
as in the Old Testament. But by whom, whence, and 
to whom was it written? For, whether by accident 
or design, the address and superscription, which either 
preceded the opening verse on the same sheet, or were 
written on an outside page or wrapper, have disap- 
peared, leaving only the problematical tradition that 
it was sent "to the Hebrews." 

If the tradition has a geographical sense, and is 
not a mere inference from the contents as adapted to 
those in danger of overrating the Old Testament, we 
1 Bruce, B. D., 1899, op. cit. p. 334 b. ; cf. Heb. 11 : 1. 

L 



146 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

must look — paradoxical as this may seem — last of 
all to Palestine itself. Not only would such an address 
be meaningless where the mass were Hebrews, but the 
very language is decisive, for all notions of an Aramaic 
original have long since been exploded. 1 Antioch or 
Syria has been proposed 2 as the home of Hebrew ( ?) 
Christianity, but with no advantage as regards the 
Alexandria, title, nor as to any local allusion save 6 : 10. Alex- 
Rome?^ andria is favoured by many, 8 and finds support in the 
peculiar type of doctrine ; for Hebrews stands almost 
alone in the New Testament in the degree to which it 
represents that fourth tendency of early Christian 
thought which Harnack defines as "universalism in 
principle and in practice," 4 and which conceived the 
particularism of the Old Testament as a mere husk 
to be penetrated by allegorical interpretation. The 
Alexandrianism of the author, however, need not be 
assumed to have characterised the readers, and even 
the more telling argument that we have evidence in 
Egypt of native and Jewish Christian writings being 
differentiated as "according to the Hebrews" and 
" according to the Egyptians, " is paralleled at Eome 
by inscriptions mentioning the name of one of the 
many Jewish synagogues as the ^waywyrj 'E/fyaiW. 5 

1 The general abandonment of a Palestinian destination 
makes it superfluous to point out the inappropriateness of 3 : 
12 ; 5 : 12 ; 6 : 2-5 to Jewish readers. 

2 So Kendall. 

8 So among others Ritschl, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, Keuss, and 
Davidson. 

4 See p. 14. In his History of Dogma, (transl. Buchanan), 
i., p. 91, however, Harnack seems to regard even Heb. as not yet 
crossing the limit between Paulinism and Alexandrianism. 

6 Schiirer, Gemeindeverfassang der Juden in Bom, 1879, p. 
16 f . In favour of a Roman destination are such leading critics 
as Holtzmann, Harnack, Zahn, and Von Soden. Wettstein in 
1752 had already adopted this view and Alfred in 1859. 



THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 147 

The mention of Timothy, 13 : 23, and the most prob- 
able explanation of a special greeting to the recipients 
from the brethren of (or from) Italy combine with the 
fact that the earliest known use of the epistle is in 
the Eoman church, 1 and that the truth regarding its 
un-Pauline origin was here so persistent, to make one 
of the Christian communities of Eome the most prob- 
able destination. This throws most light upon the 
references to the readers' experience in conversion, 
2 : 3, earlier persecution, 10 : 32-34, which in the case 
of fellow-Christians had been "unto blood," 12 : 4, and 
munificence to the poor saints, 2 6: 10. True, there is 
no reference to the controversy between Jew and 
Gentile in the Church. All alike who follow Christ 
have come forth with him without the camp, encircling 
an altar whereof they who serve the tabernacle have no 
right to eat, 13 : 10, 13. But Paul had already tri- 
umphed in the breaking down of this wall of partition 
and slaying of this enmity, Eph. 2 : 14-17. Moreover, 
the supposed references to a tendency of the readers 
to relapse into Judaism, tempted by the magnificence 
of a ritual in current practice among them, are now 
generally recognised as fallacious. 8 Eeal Judaism 
has sunk out of sight. 

Of all the conjectured names of authors only two Authorship, 
need detain us. In Tertullian's day, in Africa, it was 
believed, whether by early conjecture or tradition, to 
have been written by Barnabas. To this the author's 
reference to his own conversion, 2 : 3, and his sur- 
prising errors in regard to temple ritual, 7 : 27 ; 10 : 11 

1 Used in forty-seven places by Clement, 93-95 a.d., also by 
Hermas, 120-140. 

2 In other cases this expression refers to the collections for 
Jerusalem. 

8 See the article of Bruce above referred to, B. D., p. 337 &., 
338, and below under "Date." 



148 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

(based on the error of Philo, Be special. Leg. 23) ; 9 : 4 
(against Ex. 26: 35; 1 Kings 6:22), 21, are decidedly 
opposed (cf. Acts 4:36 f.). Luther's conjecture of 
Apollos, on the contrary, lacks only that which could 
alone entitle it to be considered more than a pleasing 
possibility, viz. some traditional or historical point 
of attachment. The description of Apollos, Acts 
18 : 24-28, seems as if coined on purpose to represent 
this author, and has further support in 1 Cor. 1 : 12 ; 
3 : 6 ; 4 : 6 ; 16 : 12 ; Tit. 3 : 13. Yet there is no answer 
to Kendall's demand: How could so well-known a 
name have disappeared? unless we ask in turn: How 
could any name borne by so great a writer disappear? 1 
The destruction of Jerusalem is contemplated 
neither in retrospect nor in prospect. Neither the 
earthly city nor its temple are before the writer's 
mind. His antithesis is between the Old Testament 
religion of form and the New Testament religion of 
spirit, the "tabernacle" of the Pentateuch vs. the 
living temple of the Church. Not the actual ritual 
of the temple is a temptation to his readers to apos- 
tatise, but a Judaism on paper, a bibliolatry of the 
Old Testament, to which the church in Kome, under 
the influence of reviving rabbinism, in 70-100 a.d. 
may well have been peculiarly exposed. 2 Nor is it 
a pure Old Testament Judaism whose influence our 
author dreads, but " divers and strange teachings " 
with ascetic distinctions of meats, 13 : 9, and, if we 
may judge from the effort of chapters 1 and 2, ten- 
dencies, as in Colossse, toward a "gratuitous self- 

1 The interesting theory just broached by A. Harnack, attrib- 
uting Heb. to the joint authorship of Prisca and Aquila, comes 
to hand too late for more than mention as a third possibility. 

2 See p. 33 ff. on "Scripture" in the early Church, and cf. 
Jn. 5:39 f. (R. V.). Observe also the complaint of Ignatius 
above, p. 35. 



THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 149 

humiliation and worshipping of the angels." The 
ordinances of the Law, " which are a shadow of the 
things to come" (Col. 2:17; cf. Heb. 8:5; 10:1), 
were inculcated in a mystical and eclectic spirit, 
reminding us rather of the false teachers of 1 Tim. 
1:4, 7; 4:lff., 7; 6:3-10; 2 Tim. 4:4; Tit. 1:10 ff.; 
3:9, etc. 

Far from furnishing a motive to the author of The Judaism 
Hebrews, the events of the Jewish war of 66-70 a.d. the Rabbinic 
affect him indirectly, if at all. The destruction of neo- _ 
the temple was the apotheosis of the synagogue, the aism ' 
downfall of the priest was the exaltation of the rabbi, 
and the cessation of the temple cultus gave a tremen- 
dous impetus to both orthodox and syncretistic wor- 
ship of the letter of the Law. It is this propaganda 
of the Jewish scribe and theosophist which our author 
antagonises, not a living temple-worship. The fact 
that he rests upon the great letters of Paul is against a 
date earlier than 70, his silence as to Palestinian affairs 
against one immediately after. On the other hand, 
his mention of Timothy, and the copious use Clement 
of Rome has made of his letter makes it impossible to 
date it later than the reign of Domitian. The sugges- 
tion that both the author and his companions "from 
Italy " may have been exiled by this emperor is en- 
tirely reasonable (cf. 13:23 f.). 

On "The Epistle to the Hebrews " see in addition to general 
works the following English authorities : Rendall, 1888, — with 
Appendix, 1888, — Westcott, 1892 2 , Vaughn, 1891. On the 
"Authorship," Welch, 1898; "Theology," Milligan, 1899. 
The Pastoral Epistles are exhaustively treated by Holtzmann 
{op. cit.) but the attempts to discriminate a genuine element 
are mostly foreign. (Lemme, Renan, Beyschlag, Sabatier, 
Hesse, Hilgenfeld.) See McGiffert, Ap. Age, pp. 398-423. 



PART III 
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES 



CHAPTER VII 

1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 

The group of seven writings called "Catholic" 
Various (j. e . general, encyclical) is the latest formation of the 

Canons. Canon. 1 Peter and 1 John formed a nucleus univers- 

ally received from a very early period. These still 
stand apart for Junilius Africanus (550 a.d.), though 
he explains that " very many add " the remaining five. 
Chrysostom's Synopsis mentions only three. Amphi- 
lochius (375-400 a.d.) notices that some say seven 
Catholic Epistles are to be received, others only three, 
viz. one of James, one of Peter, one of John. The 
Canon of the Syrian church, which at first had none, 
afterward followed the latter opinion. By the begin- 
ning of the fourth century, however, the Eastern 
church had come to include all seven, though much 
opposition was still offered, especially to 2 Peter. At 
Rome, apparently, Jude, 2 John, 3 John formed a 
special group in 175 a.d., unapostolic, 1 yet "received 
in the Catholic Church." James is ignored and 2 Peter 
unknown. 

1 This appears from the connection with " Wisdom " written 
by the friends of Solomon in his honour." So the Muratorian 
Canon, p. 50. But to read superscriptas, for superscript! 
(Johannis duas) , is violent. 

150 



1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 151 

Among all these the position of 1 Peter is unique, l Pet. not 
Of the rest 1 John alone can presume to rival it in JJ °££^' 
universality of early acceptance and in employment by 
the earliest Fathers. But 1 John is an anonymous 
composition, without superscription or local reference 
of any kind, owing its ascription to the Apostle purely 
to outsiders, who probably infer it from its obvious 
relation to the Gospel, which is itself anonymous. 
One must first ascertain in what sense the name of 
John has been properly associated with the Fourth 
Gospel — if properly at all — and thence draw one's 
inferences as to the three affiliated epistles. Hence, 
our consideration of these must be in connection with 
the Gospel. But the name of Peter belongs to 1 Peter 
in its own right. The letter has a definite address, 
occasion, superscription, location. It is either genu- 
ine or forged, or partly one, partly the other ; and in 
either case the facts should be discoverable. The 
name of Peter was indeed a favourite mask for 
pseudonymous writings — we have, in fact, a whole 
pseudonymous Canon of "Gospel," "Acts" ("Preach- 
ing," "Teaching," and "Travels"), "Apocalypse," 
and " Epistles " of Peter ; but our epistle stands not 
only on a completely superior level as regards both style 
and content, but is carried back by the positive evi- 
dence of employment by Polycarp and Papias, and 
probable use in Clement of Borne, to say nothing of 
the reference by name in 2 Pet. 3: l, 1 to a date when 
such forgery had as little motive as it had likelihood 

1 Cf. Clem. 5:7; 16 : 17; 33 : 8 with 1 Pet. 2 : 21 (vTroypafj.fj.fc 
of the sufferings of Christ) . Further Clem. 7:4 = 1 Pet. 1:19; 
Clem. 5:9 = 1 Pet. 2:9; Clem. 21 : 6-8 = 1 Pet. 3 : 1-9 ; Clem. 
22 : 1 ff. = 1 Pet. 3 : 10-12 ; Clem. 30 : 2 = 1 Pet. 5:6; Clem. 33 : 
7 = 1 Pet. 3:3; Clem. 49 : 5 = 1 Pet. 4:8; Clem. 59 : 2 = 1 Pet. 
2 : 9. For the date of 2 Pet. , whose witness to 1 Pet. is of 
course independent of its own authenticity, see below. 



152 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

of unopposed success, and when we have, as a matter 
of fact, no evidence of the practice among Christian 
writers. 

Formidable indeed must be the internal evidence 
which can outweigh such testimony; and formidable 
in all fairness must we acknowledge the opposing case 
to be. It rests (1) upon the content; (2) on the im- 
plied historical situation and date. 

Logical The structure of 1 Peter is as follows : — 

analysis. 

i. Salutation and epistolary thanksgiving, 1:1 f., 
3-12. 

ii. Doctrinal appeal. Nature of the calling of Chris- 
tians as an "adoption" in Christ, a Messianic living 
temple, a "people of God," 1: 13-2: 10. 

iii. Application. (1) As to purity, 2 : 11 f . (2) As 
to subordination in the social organism, political, 
2 : 13-17, and domestic, 2 : 18-3 : 7. 

iv. Special exhortation to submission under unmerited 
persecution, 3 : 8-4 : 19. 

v. Exhortation to a Christlike spirit in church rela- 
tions, 5:1-11. 

vi. Personal greetings. Farewell, 5 : 12-14. 

Content. After a superscription and salutation to the people 

of God in the principal provinces of Asia Minor, 1 : 1, 
2, the author enters upon a prolonged doxology of the 
Pauline type for the revelation from heaven of the 
_ Gospel of salvation as key to the problem of the cos- 
mos, 1 : 3-12. As the redeemed "people of God," the 
Messianic living temple, the spiritual Israel, their 
conduct should exemplify their calling and hope, 
1 : 13-2 : 10. Heathen calumny will be silenced by 
such conduct; first, in the relations of social order, 
as citizens to magistrates, slaves to masters, wives to 
husbands, and reciprocally, 2 : 11-3 : 7 ; second, and 
more particularly, in the patient, Christlike bearing 



1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 153 

of unmerited suffering and death, 3 : 8-4 : 6. Within 
the Church charismatic gifts should serve for recip- 
rocal benefit, 4 : 7-11 ; in the present outbreak of per- 
secution martyrs should make it clear that they suffer 
not for crime, but " for the name of Christ, " and rest 
confident in God, 4 : 12-19. The elders are exhorted 
by their fellow-elder, a witness of the martyrdom of 
Christ, to be faithful shepherds, 5 : 1-11. Salutations 
and close, 5 : 12-14. 

From beginning to end this is the letter of a dis- Pauline 
ciple of Paul. 1 We might say with Harnack, Holtz- character - 
mann, Jiilicher, and others, "In the absence of the 
first word alone no one would ever have guessed that 
Peter was the author." Not that at the late date 
everywhere implied Peter was not wholly in sympathy 
with Paul, to such a degree even as to make him appear 
the natural comforter and teacher of the churches of 
Paul's especial province; but that it is so hard to 
imagine the first and nearest of the Twelve so much 
more affected, apparently, by the teaching of Paul 
than of Jesus. Surely Peter did not go about preach- 
ing the doctrines of Paulinism ! Papias informs us, 
with every probability in his favour, that Peter was 
accustomed to relate his personal experience of the 
doings and sayings of the Lord. 2 Not only is there 
no such sense of an independent message in this letter, 
but even the references to the sufferings of Christ 
seem to have a literary rather than a historical base. 
Its Christ is the suffering " Servant " of God of Is. 53. 

But the literary dependence goes much further. It Dependence 
is one of the most solid results of criticism, that our ° n E P n - and 
epistle stands in direct literary dependence on the 
great epistles of Paul, particularly Ephesians. The 

1 Seufert (Zt.f. w. Th., 1881, pp. 178, 332) seriously advanced 
the theory that Eph. and 1 Pet. were by the same author. 

2 Corroborated by CI. Horn. 17 : 19. 



154 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

desperate attempt of B. Weiss to break the force of 
this by the theory that Paul is here the borrower, has, 
so far as known, but one adherent, and still stands a 
significant witness to the undeniable relation. The 
words of Sanday and Headlam will best express the 
judgment of conservative scholars : x — 

The resemblance [of Komans to 1 Peter] is too great and 
too constant to be merely accidental. In 1 Pet. 2 : 6 we have a 
quotation from the Old Testament with the same variations 
from the LXX. that we find in Eom. 9 : 32. Not only do we find 
the same thoughts, such as the metaphorical use of the idea of 
sacrifice (Rom. 12 : 1 ; 1 Pet. 2:5), and the same rare words, 
such as awxwaT^e<r0cu, avvTrdxpiTos, but in one passage (Eom. 
13 : 1-7 ; 1 Pet. 2 : 13-17) we have what must be accepted as 
conclusive evidence, the same ideas occurring in the same order. 
Nor can there be any doubt that of the two the Epistle to the 
Eomans is the earlier. St. Paul works out a thesis clearly and 
logically ; St. Peter gives a series of maxims for which he is 
largely indebted to St. Paul. . . . 

This relation between the two epistles is supported by other 
independent evidence. The same relation which prevails between 
1 Peter and Eomans is also found to exist between it and Ephe- 
sians, and the same hypothesis harmonises best with the fact 
in that case also. The three epistles are all connected with 
Eome : one of them being written to the city, the other two in 
all probability being written from it. 

Language. But the author of 1 Peter is not only in close literary 

dependence on Eomans and Ephesians. He writes in 
excellent and flowing Greek, certainly needing no 

1 See Sanday and Headlam, Intern. Comrn. on Eomans, 
p. lxxiv ff . and Abbott, on Eph. , p. xxiv ff. Cf. Eom. 9 : 25, 32, 
33 with 1 Pet. 2 : 10, 6-8 ; Eom. 12 : 1-3, 6, 9, 13 ; 13 : 8-10, 
11-14 with 1 Pet. 2 : 5 ; 1 : 14 ; 4 : 7-11 ; Eom. 12 : 9 f. with 1 Pet. 
1 : 22 ; Eom. 12 : 16-18 with 1 Pet. 3 : 8, 9, 11 ; Eom. 13 : 1, 3, 4, 
7 with 1 Pet. 2 : 13-17. Cf. also Eph. 1 : 3 with 1 Pet. 1:3; Eph. 
1 : 5-15, 1 Pet. 1 : 5-13 ; Eph. 2 : 18-22, 1 Pet. 2 : 4, 5, 6 ; 3 : 18 ; 
Eph. 1 : 20-22, 1 Pet. 3 : 22 ; Eph. 3 : 5, 10, 1 Pet. 1 : 10-12 ; 
Eph. 3 : 9, 1 Pet. 1 : 20. 



1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 155 

"interpreter," as we are told that Peter did, and uses 
the LXX. version as if acquainted with no other. 
Such considerations lead even Zahn, 1 after the example 
of many critics of all schools, to interpret 5 : 12 as 
indicating Silvanus as real author. Oriental custom, 
in fact, permits the great man to make the composi- 
tion of a subordinate his own by the addition of a 
personal word or two at the end. His letters are thus 
written " by " or " through " the scribe. 

More serious than the difficulties which may, in Date and 
part, be met by such a supposition, are those of date, stances. 
The persons addressed are Gentile Christians (1 : 14, 
18; 2:9, 10; 4:2-4; cf. 3:6), a "sowing" of God, 2 
" no people " before their conversion, but now united 
by an inward bond into a "people of God" to the 
exclusion of Israel after the flesh (2 : 7-10 ; cf . Hos. 
1 : 6-9; 2 : 1, 23). Their churches now extend beyond 
the Pauline provinces of Galatia and Asia northward 
to Bithynia and Pontus, southward to Cappadocia. 
If Paul is not already dead, why does Peter, or some 
one who speaks in Peter's name, invade this field? 
And why is Paul unmentioned, while both Silvanus 
and Mark are present? Moreover, the occasion and 
purpose are unmistakable. A fiery ordeal of persecu- 
tion has broken forth to the dismay of the Church 
(4:12). No longer is it the petty social malice of 
Jewish and heathen neighbours, though this of course 
is still present (3 : 16 ; 4:4, 14) ; but now the adversary 
is a roaring and devouring lion, whose ravages are 
universal (5:8 f.), the penalties of murder and robbery 
are inflicted (4 : 15), one is liable to suffer capital pun- 

1 Einleitung, § 38, vol. n, p. 10 f. 

2 There is a play upon the word ' ' Diaspora " (i.e. "scattered " 
or "sown"), as in Hos. 2:23, Jer. 31:27 on Jezreel. The 
same figure is beautifully employed in the sacramental prayer 
At5. 9:4. 



from Rome. 



156 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

ishment "as a Christian," in which case one must 
seek to "glorify God in this name." No candid 
historical exegesis can remove the figure of the 
Roinan magistrate from 1 Pet. c. 4 as the inflicter 
of such penalties. It is Ramsay himself who con- 
fesses himself shut up to the dilemma: Either Peter 
survived, contrary to all tradition, until the reign of 
Domitian, before whose time there was no official 
persecution in the provinces, or 1 Peter is not gen- 
uine. 1 
Written We may be confident that Eome would not be re- 

ferred to as "Babylon" (5:13), — for neither history 
nor tradition afford the slightest support for the literal 
interpretation of the word, — nor the conditions of 
"fiery" persecution be thus depicted, nor Paul's 
churches in Asia Minor thus addressed, until after 
his martyrdom at the hands of Nero. There are few, 
if any, who can think with Ramsay that the tradition 
of a common martyrdom for Peter and Paul at the 

1 Church in the Soman Empire, c. xi. The Neronian perse- 
cution was confined to Eome (see Arnold, Neron. Christen- 
verfolgung, 1888), and was for a specific accusation of crime. 
Vespasian and Titus did not persecute. Domitian (81-96 a.d.) 
was at first tolerant, and even at the end of his reign will not 
often have gone outside of Rome for victims. The distinction 
in Pliny's inquiry (110 a.d.) regarding the very provinces of 
our letter and in Trajan's reply, is of utmost historical impor- 
tance. It implies that at some time, probably under Domitian, 
magistrates had been authorised to punish Christians as such, 
the name itself, if confessed, being taken as evidence of crime, 
as recent legislators have proposed to treat the name Anarchist. 
Under Nero the flagitia cohaerentia nomini had to be proved. 
Ramsay goes too far in saying that 1 Pet. implies that the dis- 
tinction already existed in law. 1 Pet. 4 : 15 f. earnestly desires 
that such a distinction should be made. As yet the magistrates 
appear to act on the popular (unstatutory) assumption that the 
name implies the fact ; cf. Tacitus, Ann. 15 : 44 : quos per 
flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. 



authen- 
ticity. 



1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 157 

hands of the same mad tyrant, can be so far astray as 
to permit the survival of Peter beyond 81 a.d. Yet 
while the martyrdom of Peter is established by John 
21 : 19 and Clement of Rome (cc. 5, 6), Dionysius of 
Corinth (250 a.d.) and Eusebius are the first to date it 
in the ISTeronian persecution. A later date, therefore, 
cannot be pronounced impossible. 

If the critic's knife could be wielded like the sword Integrity 
of Alexander, Harnack's solution 1 for this G-ordian knot involve 
would be simple : The superscription (1 : 1) and salu- 
tation (5 : 12-14) are an addition of the Canon-makers. 2 
But there is no natural cleavage ; 1 : 1 is of a piece 
with all the section 1 : 1-2 : 11, and 5 : 12-14 agrees 
with it, as well as with 5 : 1 ff . We are driven to the 
question: If not Peter, who else? McGiffert's sug- 
gestion of Barnabas as this disciple of Paul, spiritual 
father of Mark, and witness of the crucifixion, surely 
cannot be outdone for plausibility. But how patron- 
ising even then will be the tone of 5 : 12 ! And how 
account for 5 : 1-4 unless Barnabas himself is trying 
to pass himself off as the real recipient of the charge 
of Christ to " tend his flock " in John 21 : 15-19 ? All 
things considered, 1 Peter may still represent to us 
the adoptive work of Peter, writing "by Silvanus" 
from Pome to the churches of Paul in Asia; the letter 
of an old man (5:1), whose charge from the chief 
Shepherd (John 21:15-17), and spirit of humility 
imbibed from him, lend a wonderful beauty and appro- 
priateness to his encouragement to Paul's churches, 
through Paul's companion, that the doctrine they have 
learned is "the true grace of God," and his exhorta- 
tion that they "stand fast in it." A disposition to 



1 Chronologie, vol. I, p. 451 ff. 

2 For a summary of objections to Harnack's theory see Jii- 
licher, Einl., § 15, 5, p. 136. 



158 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

speak of persecution in Asia Minor in terms not yet 
strictly appropriate by one who writes from Rome 
under the immediate impression of the horrible fore- 
taste of official persecution experienced in the last 
years of Nero, is less incredible than absolute pseudo- 
nymity at so early a date. 

James, is If the difficulties of 1 Peter are created by the very 
Sense of r ? definiteness of its implied historical and geographical 
superscrip- relations, the case is reversed in James. The super- 
scription, 1 : 1, alone suggests that it is a letter, and 
nothing could be more indefinite than the characteri- 
sation of both writer and readers even here. The 
Fathers, true to their theory of apostolicity, usually 
pitched upon James the son of Alpheeus as the writer, 
James the brother of John having been beheaded in 
44 a. d. (Acts 12:1). Modern scholars agree that at 
the date whence this superscription derives, genuine 
or not, no other than the "pillar" of the Jerusalem 
church (Gal. 2:9; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 21:18) 
can have been intended, both here and in Jude 1, this 
"brother of the Lord" ( Gal. 1:19) being the James 
par Eminence. 
Date verv Again, the address is such as to tax to the utmost 

early or very the ingenuity of the many able scholars who have 
late * endeavoured to find a place for the epistle — or better, 

encyclical — within the lifetime of James, i.e. before 
62 a.d. On account of the apparent reference to 
Pauline formulae in 2 : 14-26 1 the attempt has been 
made to place it between 57 and 62, but critics of all 
schools are now agreed that the author wages no con- 
scious polemic against Paul, whose fundamental doc- 
trines could not have been dismissed, as it were, in an 
obiter dictum. The absence of any trace of the conflict 

1 Cf. especially 2 : 23 with Eom. 4 : 3 j Gal. 3 : 6. 



1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 159 

between Jew and Gentile, distinctive of 48-70 a.d., a 
silence as marked as in Hebrews, forces the defenders 
of the superscription, accordingly, to an extremely- 
early date. Moreover, the ideal Israel addressed (1 : 1) 
becomes a more conceivable entity as the actual recip- 
ient of a letter, in proportion as we recede toward 
the early period when the confines of Christendom 
could be supposed to coincide with the boundaries of 
Syria. On the other hand, the notion of James writing 
encyclicals before Paul has even begun to write his 
epistles, is almost grotesque, to say nothing of the 
dubious relation which would then subsist between 
Jas. 2:14ff. and Galatians and Romans. Certainly 
the Christendom of 1 : 1 is no less comprehensive than 
"the Israel of God" of Gal. 6:16, and the new "peo- 
ple of God " of 1 Peter. On the contrary, the con- 
ception is identical, as appears by comparison of verses 
18, 21, where the same figure of the Diaspora (" sow- 
ing ") of God shines through. 1 These "twelve tribes " 
are the one hundred and forty-four thousand of Reve- 
lation, twelve thousand from each tribe of the ideal 
Israel, precisely as Hennas, Sim. 9 : 17, 12, by the 
same expression, sets forth the ecumenical character 
of Christendom. 

But the time when James the Lord's brother could Implied cir- 
be supposed to send forth encyclicals as "bishop of 
bishops" to such a constituency had existence only 
after his death in the devout imagination of the Syrian 
church. The very idea of the new Israel as a " scat- 

1 Cf. also vss. 10, 11 with 1 Pet. 1 : 24. Attempts to exclude 
the Jews of Palestine itself from the circle addressed are in- 
compatible with a date within the lifetime of James. The 
"twelve" tribes would be a preposterous form in which to 
address the Jews of the Dispersion. At the utmost we should 
have "the ten tribes," or "the Dispersion of the Twelve 
Tribes." 



cumstances. 



160 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

tered" people of God, chosen from the poor of the 
world to be heirs of the kingdom (Jas. 2 : 5), it was 
the life work of Paul to bring home to the "pillars," 
whose horizon was limited to the circumcision (Gal. 
2 : 9), and is present in Jas. 1 : 1 only by the mediation 
of 1 Pet. 1: 1. Certainly James cannot have written 
to the conservative faction only as "the twelve 
tribes," and even when Paul, "after many years" 
(Acts 24 : 17), and at the risk of his life, had accom- 
plished his peace-making mission, and could write 
that the enmity was slain, he is not likely to have 
issued an encyclical containing such language as Jas. 
2: 14-26, unless he wished to revive the conflict. 1 
Style and Even more fatal to the authenticity of the super- 

language, scription is the language. Before the founding of the 
Greek churches, while as yet the Gospel itself was in 
circulation only in Hebrew or Aramaic, if not earlier 
still, James, as recognised head of this Christendom, 
whose centre is Jerusalem and whose circumference a 
fringe of unknown proselytes, addresses an encyclical 
to the twelve tribes of Israel — and addresses them 
in mellifluous Greek, the most rhetorical of the New 
Testament with the single exception of Hebrews ! 2 
But with James the case is very different from 

1 The best English representative of the conservative position 
is J. B. Mayor, Introd. to St. James, 2 1897. See also his art., 
"James, Epistle of," in B. D., 1899. 

2 The forlorn hope of Bishop Wordsworth to make this epistle 
out the translation of an Aramaic writing may be ' ' worth the 
attention of scholars " (Dods), but only as an example of des- 
perate expedients. Dods himself explains that " in the Epistle 
of James words occur which would hardly be used save by a 
writer acquainted with Greek literature." It has thirteen 
words unknown to the LXX., seven more extremely rare 
words, twenty-seven common to LXX. and classics, but not 
in colloquial use, and even metaphors (1 : 17 ; 3:6) which have 
no explanation in the whole range of Jewish literature. 



1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 161 

1 Peter. There the superscription and farewell are 
of the same texture as the epistle. Here the super- 
scription — there is no other epistolary material — 
is both ill-fitting and historically inapplicable. 
Eemove it, and we find in the writing itself every 
characteristic, not of a letter, but of a homily, or 
perhaps, better, a series of somewhat disconnected 
homiletical excerpts. 1 

So far as the exhortation has logical arrangement, Logical 
it is as follows:— analysis. 

i. Salutation, 1:1. (Probably a scribal conjecture.) 

ii. Commendation of the worthy object of desire (" wis- 
dom," the divine ethical ideal) as against unworthy 
(ease, wealth, etc.); lust vs. the [ideal] law, 1:2-11, 
12-27. 

iii. Social discriminations violate the law of love; 
faith (intellectual) no substitute, 2 : 1-13, 14-26. 

iv. The working of wisdom : not shown in word, but 
in life, c. 3. 

v. The working of unworthy desire: self-seeking, 
self-exaltation, a perilous worldliness, 4 : 1-5 : 6. 

vi. Inference, patient continuance in faith and 
good works will insure the reward of saints, 5 : 7-20. 

1 Jas. has rightly been compared to the so-called Second 
Epistle of Clement of Rome, of which Lightfoot says (Ap. 
Fathers, ed. of 1891, p. 41) : "We may now [since the dis- 
covery of the latter half containing the words ' Let us not 
think to give heed and believe now only, while we are being 
admonished by the presbyters ; but likewise when we have 
departed home,' etc.] definitely regard it as the earliest Chris- 
tian homily extant." True, Harnack (Chron. d. a. Lit., p. 440) 
makes a tempting identification of 2 Clem, with the letter of 
Soter of Rome to Corinth (170 a.d.). If so, it simply shows 
that the good bishop's idea of letter writing was to work up an 
old sermon — not exactly the primitive conception. We may 
say the same of Jas. 

M 



162 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Character The exhortation is of an extreme ethical type, not 

and content. on i y un a ctrmal, but anti-doctrinal (1:22; 2:19 f . ; 
3:1 ff., 13). The factors of salvation are two: the 
human, which consists in persistent well-doing, in 
accordance with the revealed moral law; the divine, 
which consists in the bestowal of " wisdom " in answer 
to believing prayer, "wisdom" having the pregnant 
ethical sense of the Old Testament (cf. Lk. 1:17). 
The trials of life (1 : 2-4), vicissitudes of fortune 
(9-11), and temptations of the flesh (12-15) perfect 
character, if met by this dependence on God (5-8, 
16-18). 

In view of this, our part is to be doers of the law 
of Christ, the revealed, "implanted word," the mirror 
of moral perfection; neither mere hearers nor mere 
talkers, but keepers of the divine requirement of 
purity and humanity (1 : 19-27). This " perfect law," 
"free" and "royal," demands, first of all, that we 
honour the poor man, our fellow-heir to the kingdom 
(2 : 1-13) ; second, that we carry out our profession 
in actual works of humanity (14-26). Moreover, it 
rarely becomes our part to assume the function of 
teacher; the tongue needs taming more than training 
(3:1-12). If the divine "wisdom" is in us, it will 
appear in a good life (13-18). The strife and evil of 
the world come from greed; beware of this kind of 
self -exaltation (4 : 1-10) ; also of that of criticising 
others (11 f.), and assuming to control in place of 
God (13-17). A denunciation of the oppressions of 
the rich (5 : 1-6), commendation of the patient suffer- 
ing of Job and the prophets (7-11), with special warn- 
ing against oaths (vs. 12), and a call to prayer and 
praise in the Church (13-18), with effort for the con- 
version of sinners (19 f.), somewhat abruptly con- 
clude the exhortation. 

We can hardly wonder that a brilliant and original 



1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 163 

critic 1 should have soberly suggested a purely Jewish Jewish or 
origin for a writing so exclusively moral and practical, Christiau ? 
which ignores every distinctive doctrine of Chris- 
tianity, every question of the relation of Jew and 
Gentile in the Church, which has not a trace of " the 
new Messianism," and, with one more or less pre- 
carious exception, does not so much as mention the 
name of Christ, taking even its examples of patient 
suffering and effective prayer from the Old Testament 
(5:10, 17 f.). 2 Yet even if we admit the awkward 1 
position of the words 'Irjaov Xpiarov in 2 : 1 to be due 
to their interpolation, the doctrine of the spiritual 
Israel, 2 : 5, the sole validity of the law of love, 
2:8, and the gift of the divine spirit of wisdom, 
making us heirs of God, 1:18; 2:5; 3:13-18, would 
prove this writing not only Christian, but post- 
Pauline, however Jewish in type. The meagre in- 
dications of date by historical allusion permit us, 
indeed, if we would cling, at all costs, to the super- 
scription, to disregard objections based on the traces 
of growing worldliness (2:1 ff . ; 4: 13 f.) and profes- 
sion without practice (2 : 14 ff . ; 3:1, 13) ; but the 
indications of date by literary relationship are really 
conclusive. 

The Pauline Epistles are certainly presupposed, 
both by the use of Pauline terminology and expres- 



1 F. Spitta, Zur Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchristenthums, vol. II, 
1896, and Der Brief des Jacobus, 1896. So previously L. Mas- 
sebieau in Revue de VHistoire des Religions, 1895. 

2 And this is supposed to emanate from Jesus' brother ! — In 
reality the treatment of the Christian faith as essentially a nova 
lex (cf. Barn. 2 : 6 icaivbs vhfxos 8.vev fryov dvdyKijs) belongs to 
the relatively late period of manuals of Gospel Teaching (Ai5.) 
and of the Oracles of the Lord. Acts 2 : 22 ff. ; 3 : 13-26 ; 7: 51- 
56 ; 8 : 35 ; 10 : 38-43 give a very different impression of the 
ideas dominant in the primitive Church in Jerusalem. 



164 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Relation to 
Pauline 
Epistles, 
Heb., and 
Clement of 
Rome. 



sions ; 1 for we have seen that dependence on the side 
of Paul is insupposable, and denial of the relation is 
unconvincing. But there is no attempt to deny this 
relation between James and 1 Peter (cf . 1 Pet. 1 : 1, 
23 f. with Jas. 1:1, 18, 21 ; 1 Pet. 5:5, 9 with Jas. 
4:6, 7, etc. 2 ), and a comparison of the natural and 
logically connected way in which the " Diaspora" 
figure appears in 1 Peter with the irrelevant mention 
in James will show that the unbiassed judgment of 
Luther and Bengel, who recognise the priority of 1 
Peter, is to be preferred to that of some moderns who 
would invert the relation. Finally, a careful com- 
parison of the treatment of the relation of faith and 
works in Jas. 2 : 21-25, in the examples of Abraham 
(representing Israel) and Kahab (representing the 
Gentile world), with the complete parallels in Heb. 
11:8 ff., 31 (cf. Bom. 4:17 f.), on the one side, and 
in Clement of Rome, cc. 10-12, on the other, 
will show that it is not Paulinism which our author 
consciously antagonises, but the doctrine of faith, 

1 Note SiKaiovcrdcu e/c Trio-revs or e£ iprytov, diKaioaijvr) Oeov, reXeiv 
rhv vofiov, the connected ideas KXrjpovop.e'lv and /3a<ri\eia, Kplvecrdai, 
vwb v6p.ov, /cara/cai'xSo'^ai, tL rb &<pe\os, p.7) rrXavaade, dXX' ipei 
■m, 6\6k\t)pos, 7rapa\oyi£e<r6ai, p.4\r], Trapa^dryjs v6p.ov, iXevdepla ; 
and compare the passages 1 : 2, 3 (== Rom. 5 : 3, 4), 13 (against 

1 Cor. 10: 13), 18 (= Rom. 8 : 23), 21 (= Rom. 13 : 12), 22 
(=Rom. 2:13); 2:4 (= Rom. 14: 1), 5 (=1 Cor. 1 : 27, 28 

2 Cor. 6 : 10 ; 8:9), 6 (=1 Cor. 6 : 2, 4), 8 (= Rom. 13 : 8 
Gal. 5 : 14), 10 (= Gal. 5 : 3), 19 (= 1 Cor. 8 : 4 ; 2 Cor. 11 
14), 21 (against Gal. 3:6; Rom. 4 : 3), 24 (against Rom. 3 : 28 
Gal. 2:16); 3:15 (=1 Cor. 2:6, 14), 16, 18 (= 1 Cor. 3:3 
14: 33; 2 Cor. 12: 20); 4: 1 (= Rom. 6 : 13 ; 7:23), 4 (=Rom 
8 : 7), 5 (= Gal. 5 : 17 ; Rom. 8 : 9, 11), 11, 12 (= Rom 2 : 1 
14 : 4), 15 (=1 Cor. 4 : 19). Other striking examples are given 
by Holtzmann, Einl. 3 , p. 335. 

2 Further cf. 1 Pet. 1 : 6, 7 with Jas. 1 : 2, 3 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 12, 
Jas. 1 : 25 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 22, Jas. 4 : 8 ; 1 Pet. 2 : 1, Jas. 1 : 21 ; IPet. 
4 : 8, Jas. 5 : 20 ; 1 Pet. 5 : 6, Jas. 4 : 10. 



1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 165 

as a reader of Heb. c. 11 might misinterpret it. In 
Clement's still further elaboration of the same theme, 
we have a more advanced stage of the same effort to 
guard against a similar one-sided understanding. 1 
Not the mere belief of the promise made Abraham's 
offering of Isaac and Eahab's receiving of the spies 
types of justification (Heb. 11 : 17, 31) ; according to 
Jas. 2 : 21, 25 it was faith plus works. Clement takes 
a further step and declares it to have been due to 
faith plus the specific works of " obedience " and " hos- 
pitality." The date of the homily will therefore be 
about 90 a.d., and the superscription a mistaken con- 
jecture. Its interests are those of the Christianity of 
Eome, where we soon find it copiously employed by 
Hernias, not those of Palestine in 35-45 a.d. 2 

We have space for little more than mention of the 
brief epistle which comes to us once under the name 

1 Other passages showing dependence on Heb. are 1 : 17 (cf. 
Heb. 12 : 9); 2 : 17, 20, 26 (cf. Heb. 6:1; 9 : 14) ; 3 : 18 (cf. Heb. 
12 : 11) ; 4 : 15 (cf. Heb. 6:3); 5 : 10 (cf. Heb. 13 : 7). 

2 With Newton we say : Hypotheses non fingo. Yet to 
correlate facts into working hypotheses capable of being tested 
is the essence of the Newtonian method. As a "working 
hypothesis" we may lay down the following possibilities: (i) 
The homily known as the Epistle of James originated in Rome 
ca. 90 a.d. and was delivered to and preserved by the "syna- 
gogue " addressed (2 : 2), possibly the actual (Christianised) 
"Zwaywyi] tot "EfipaLwv, which had previously received Heb. 
(ii) Later tradition of this local church attached the superscrip- 
tion (1 : 1) as it attached the title "of Barnabas" to Heb., in 
the belief that in the revered document it possessed an "Epistle 
of James"; but failed to secure recognition for it in general 
Roman use, for the same reasons which in the Muratorian 
Canon weigh against Hermas, and in western authorities gen- 
erally against Heb. (iii) The superscription procured it admis- 
sion to the Syrian Canon, but the early limitation of its use 
prevented its securing general acceptance. 



166 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Jude and 
2 Pet. 
Logical 
analysis. 



Sense of 
superscrip- 
tion of Jude. 



of Jude, and a second time in an expanded form, and 
with additions, as 2 Peter. With allowance for a 
chapter prefixed and another appended to 2 Peter, the 
same analysis will serve for both. 

i. [Peculiar to 2 Peter.] Salutation and general 
exhortation in one, 1:1-11. Self-introduction of the 
Apostle, as spokesman for Christ and the prophets, 
1:12-21. (In Jude, Salutation only, vs. 1 f.) 

ii. Denunciation of libertine teachers, 2 Pet. c. 2 = 
Jude 3-16. 

iii. Exhortation to hold to the Apostolic word. Dox- 
ology, Jude 17-25. [Expanded in 2 Peter into a fur- 
ther refutation of the error of those who pervert the 
Pauline Epistles and " the other Scriptures," denying 
the second advent, 2 Pet. c. 3.] 

The superscription of Jude has the negative advan- 
tage that next to nothing whatever is known of the 
person in question. Judas the Apostle (son) of James, 
Lk. 6 : 16 ; Acts 1 : 13, cannot be meant, for the addi- 
tion, "brother of James," of course connects the writer 
with some noted individual, hence, doubtless, " James 
the Lord's brother." This Judas is mentioned in 
Matt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3 (Acts. 1:14?; 1 Cor. 9:5?), 
and, according to Hegesippus (175 a.d.), his grand- 
children were, in the time of Domitian, (81-96), the 
living representatives (apparently the only ones) of 
the family of the Lord; these grandchildren were 
then living by manual labour on their farm, in Pales- 
tine, of thirty-nine acres. 1 What there is of history 
relating to Jude is, therefore, unfavourable to the 
idea that he issued an encyclical in the Greek lan- 
guage to the universal Church, at a time when the 
warnings of the Apostles were a thing of the past 
(17, 18), and the predicted heresies of the last times 



1 Euseb. Hist. 3 : 19, 20, 1. 



1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 167 

were, in this writer's judgment, already corrupting 
the Church. The superscription is as indefinite as 
that of James, and was almost as widely disbelieved 
by the scholars of antiquity best qualified to judge, 
though here we need only suppose the words dSeA^os 
Se '1o.ku>(3ov to have been added by conjecture, and the 
local name to have disappeared at the end of verse 1. 
In their present form, however, both superscriptions 
are as ill-fitted to the respective writings as the papal 
tiara to the brow of the fisherman Apostle, and are 
certainly not deserving of more consideration than 
they received at the hands of the great Eeformers, and 
of the Fathers in whose age the claim of apostolicity 
was first put forth in their behalf. 1 

Scepticism as to the two interrelated superscrip- To be 
tions enables us to preserve our respect for the contents ^fof with 
of James and Jude. For while we must needs believe James, 
that actual brothers of Jesus, if they could be sup- 
posed to speak ex cathedra to the universal Church, 
would have had something to say of him, and as from 
him, we are more attentive to hear the exhortation of 
nameless later preachers against the worldliness and 
false teaching which, according to Hegesippus, left 
the Palestinian church as unstained as a pure virgin 
until the second century, if we know they are not 
attempting to impose upon their readers by false pre- 

1 Eusebius (325 a.d.) classes both with the &vTi\ey6neva, 
himself apparently rejecting them, though admitting that 
" Nevertheless they are publicly used in most of the churches." 
Origen (250 a.d.) is the first to quote Jas. by name, and that not 
as authentic, but in rfj cpepo^vrj 'Io.ku)(3ov i-n-La-ToXy. Jerome 
writes as to Jas. : "It is asserted that this was published by some 
other person under his name, though as time went on, it by 
degrees obtained authority." Jude per contra has actual sup- 
porters in Clement of Alexandria (215 a.d.) and the Muratorian 
Canon, though there is not a trace of its existence in earlier 
times save in 2 Pet. 



168 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

tences. Toward Jude, which makes no pretences to 
great antiquity and authority beyond this probably 
conjectural superscription, we may properly take such 
an attitude. Toward 2 Peter, alone of New Testa- 
ment writings, the loudest and most persistent in its 
pretensions, while at the same time by far the weakest 
in the attestation and regard of both antiquity and 
modern times, 1 our attitude must needs be different. 
From the point of view of the historian, pseudony- 
mous may be as useful as authentic writings for the 
light shed on their own real age; but the Christian 
can only mitigate the disrespect he feels for plagia- 
rists and impostors by the reflection that the conscience 
of the second century had practically no recognition 
for these literary crimes, rampant as they then were 
in the Church. 
Literature Jude, for its extent, is peculiarly rich in its use 

Jude 0yed m °f li terature > including the Pauline, 2 especially the 
Pastoral Epistles, which are probably expressly re- 
ferred to in 17, 18 (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1, 2; 
4 : 3), but instead of the Old Testament it largely relies 
on apocryphal apocalyptic writings. The Assumptio 
Mosis is employed in verse 9 3 and in 14, 15, Enoch 
1 : 1 is expressly cited as an actual writing of " Enoch 
the seventh from Adam." Other material from the 
same source is borrowed without acknowledgment in 
verses 6, 8. 
Date and The date and place of origin of this letter is deter- 

object. minable only from the character of the heresy to 

resist which it was written, and which Clement of 
Alexandria identified with the libertine Gnosticism 

1 2 Pet. has not the support even of Eusebius among the 
Fathers nor of Calvin himself among the Keformers. 

2 Cf. 10, 19 with 1 Cor. 2 : 14, 15 ; 20, 24 with Col. 1 : 22 ; 2 : 
7 ; 24, 25 with Eom. 16 : 25-27. 

3 Origen, De Princip. 3 : 2. 



1 PETEB, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 169 



of Carpocrates (120-140 a.d.). In reality not mere 
antinonrian laxity of morals is opposed (4, 8, 10, 12, 
16, 18), but a definite system of pretended gnosis (vss. 
8, 10, 19), inimical to respect for angels and for the 
authority of God and Christ (4, 8, 10, 18; cf. 1 Jn. 
2:22; Enoch 48:10; Herm. Sim. 5:6, 1; AiS. 4:1), 
and the heretics who, in the Pastoral Epistles, are 
still tolerated are here also part of the Church (vs. 12) 
and treated with lenity (22 f.), though already sepa- 
rating themselves 1 (19). But they are not yet "gone 
out from " the Christian body, as in 1 Jn. 2 : 19. 

Accurate location in time and place of the special Gnostics 
Gnostic sect here antagonised is impracticable. There 
is close relationship to the avaricious false teachers 
of the Pastoral Epistles (cf. e.g. 11 f., 16 with Tit. 
1:11), but much closer still with the " Balaamites " 
of Eev. 2:14, 20, 24 and the "lawless" "false 
prophets " and " deniers of the Eather and the Son " 
of 1 Jn. 2:18-23, 26; 3:4-12; 4:1-6 (cf. Jude 4, 8). 
In opposition, the writer urges that this apostasy was 
long since foretold (4, 14 f., 18), and commends to 
his readers the remedy of the Pastoral Epistles, the 
"deposit of the faith," and form of wholesome words 
delivered by the Apostles. 2 

But the mythologising and ascetic features of the 
Jewish theosophists have here receded behind the 
immorality of the "concision," contemptuous of an- 
gelic authorities. Asceticism and libertinism are, in * A ' D 
fact, the two foci about which the Gnostic sects 
revolve. In Eev. 2 : 14 disregard for the rules of 
morality and communion with demonic beings (1 Cor. 

1 The phraseology indicates the Gnostic discriminations of 
the "spiritual" (Gnostics) from the "psychic" (ordinary 
men). 

2 3, 17, 20 ; cf. 1 Tim. 1 : 11, 18 ; 4 : 6, 11, 16 ; 6 : 3, 13 f., 20 ; 
2 Tim. 1:13 f. ; 2:2, 14: 3:14 f. ; Tit. 1:9; 2:1. 



Their char- 
acter sug- 
gests 
" Asia" ca. 



170 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

6:12-20; 10:1-11:1) is named "the teaching of 
Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block 
before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed 
to idols and to commit fornication" (cf. 1 Cor. 10:7, 
8; Num. 25:1 ff.), and distinguished from that of 
"the Nicolaitans," which church tradition reports to 
have been ascetic. In Jude 7, 11, 16 (cf. 1 Cor. 
10 : 10), 18, the heretics plunge into the way of Cain, 
the error of Balaam, and the rebellion of Korah. 1 
All this suggests that the epistle, notwithstanding the 
superscription, is intended for a definite Christian 
circle, probably in Asia Minor, 2 whither its compan- 
ion, 2 Peter, the Pastoral Epistles, 1-3 John, and 
Revelations are all directed, at a period not far from 
90 A.D. 

2 Pet. The genius of Spitta 8 has not availed in the minds 

deP Jud ent °^ scn °l ars to reverse the relation of dependence of 
2 Peter on Jude. The former has an introductory 
chapter exhorting believers in general to progress in 
Christian virtue in order to make sure of salvation, 
and an introduction of its writer in the personality of 

1 An early Ophite (i.e. serpent worshipping) Gnostic sect was 
called Cainite because of its peculiar attitude toward the O. T. 
Material existence being a misfortune, Jehovah the demiurge 
was an evil being, the Serpent who revealed to Adam and Eve 
the way of apotheosis through knowledge of good and evil 
(gnosis) was the type of the Redeemer (Rev. 2:24; 12: 9). 
Thus the good and evil of the O. T. were reversed. Cain was 
the first saint (cf. 1 Jn. 3 : 12), Korah the first martyr, Balaam 
the first true prophet, Judas, from whom they pretended to 
have a "Gospel of Judas," the only one of the Twelve who 
understood Jesus, etc. 

2 So Von Soden, Handcomm., p. 186, who points out the 
incompatibility, yet maintains the possibility of Jude having 
been written between 80 and 90 by Jude the Lord's brother. 

8 Der 2 Brief des Pt. u. d. Brief des Jd., 1885. 



1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 171 

Simon Peter " giving diligence to call the truth to their 
remembrance after his decease " (c. 1). Its author 
thereupon launches into an elaboration of Jude's de- 
nunciation of the false teachers, following that epistle 
step by step and, in considerable measure, word for 
word (c. 2). 1 To this is appended, after reference to 
the "former epistle," a refutation of another class of 
"mockers who say, Where is the promise of his 
(Christ's) coming ? for from the day that the fathers 
fell asleep all things continue as they were from the 
beginning of the creation." The answer is, that the 
delay is not due to slackness on God's part in fulfil- 
ing his promises, but to long suffering. His mercy 
reckons a thousand years as one day. The Pauline 
Epistles, on account of obscurity of style, have been 
misinterpreted, along with "the other Scriptures," by 
the error ists. 

1 That the dependence is on the part of 2 Pet. is manifest — 
apart from the absolute marks of very late date, such as the 
allusion to the Pauline Epistles as Scripture, 3 : 15 — from six 
considerations : (i) 2 Pet. absorbs all of Jude and adds to it. 
(ii) The connection in Jude is logical, simple, and direct ; 2 Pet. 
2 : 1-3 : 3 wanders into supplementary digressions and elabora- 
tions (e.g. 2 : 5 after 2:4 = Jude 6 ; 2 : 7-9 after 2:6 = Jude 6 ; 
2 : 15, 16 after 2 : 14 = Jude 11). (iii) The copy is sometimes 
unintelligible without comparison of the original. So 2 Pet. 
2 : 4 (through omission of the reference to Gen. 6 : 2 f. in Jude 
6), 12 (cf. Jude 10), 17 (cf. Jude 12, 13). (iv) The opponents 
in Jude are a definite, tangible class (16, 19), in 2 Pet. 
2 : 1-3 something foreseen in the future, then, after the digres- 
sion, 4-9, from 10 on, something present, (v) The omission 
between 2 : ,17 and 18 removes the citation from Enoch, Jude 
14, 15, as the reference to Apoc. Mos. is similarly expurgated 
in 2 : 11 ; but the material taken from Enoch by Jude without 
acknowledgement remains, (vi) The reference of Jude 17 to 
Apostolic forewarnings is expanded in 2 Pet. 3 : 2 to a reference 
to the threefold canonical authority of the second century, pro- 
phecy, commandment of the Lord, apostolic tradition ; but cf . 
3:3 = Jude 18. 



172 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Object. 



Contrast 
with 1 Pet. 



The chief purpose of the writer appears in the 
appended chapter and at the same time makes the 
late date unmistakable. He would stir up a remem- 
brance of the words of the prophets and "the com- 
mandment of the Lord and Saviour through the 
Apostles, " and counteract the misinterpretation of the 
Pauline Epistles, so that after the decease of Peter, 
predicted in Jn. 21 : 18 ff . (cf . 2 Pet. 1 : 13-15), and 
the rest of " the fathers, " mockers x may not jeer at 
the failure of the expected parousia (2 Pet. 3:4; cf. 
Jn. 21:23; 1 Thess. 4:15-18). 

But while 1 Peter is referred to and employed, even 
claimed by the writer as his own, scholars of ancient 
and modern times have recognised the impossibility 
of both being by the same author; 2 nor is there, in 
spite of the ostensible identity of the readers (3:1; 
but contrast 1 : 1), the slightest resemblance of cir- 
cumstances. Persecution has suddenly passed away; 
heresy as suddenly appeared. Diversity of style 
might be accounted for, indeed, if Silvanus be real 
author of 1 Peter, but not the complete diversity of 
spirit and of circumstances; and we should then be 
unable to explain why in the one case the nominal 
writer subordinates his personality and in the other 
obtrudes it. 

We may explain away, with Salmon, 3 the indi- 
cations Edwin Abbott 4 has found of the author's 
acquaintance with Josephus (90 a.d.); or, if it 
really be considered more probable, assume, with Ear- 



1 If these are the same who pervert the Pauline Epistles (3 : 
16) we may compare Hymenseus and Philetus, 2 Tim. 2 : 18. 

2 Jerome endeavoured to account for the palpable difference 
of style by suggesting a twofold translation, from Greek to 
Hebrew and thence back to Greek ! 

3 Introd. (1885), pp. 638-653. 
* Expositor, 1882, Vol. III. 



1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 173 

rar, 1 that Josephus borrowed from 2 Peter (!); still 
the dependence on New Testament literature from the 
Synoptists (2 Pet. 1:17 f.) to the Gospel of John 
(1 : 14) ; from the Pauline Epistles, which already form 
a definite Canon classed with "the other Scriptures," 
subject to the study of the devout, as well as to per- 
version by teachers of error, to 1 Peter and Jude, 
will carry us down irresistibly toward the middle of 
the second century. Here among the mass of pseuclo- 
Petrine writings is one, at least, with which our 
epistle shows literary connection. 2 

The connection of the denunciation of Jude (c. 2) 
with the author's own polemic (c. 3) is probably due Late and 
to the fact that the Gnostic false teachers are also the ^ous char- 
scoffers. Both objections and answers point to a late acter. 
age. Both parties dispute about higher knowledge 
as a means of "participation in the divine nature" 
(1:3 f.), and appeal to Scripture of Old and New 
Testament (l:20f.; 3:1 ff., 15 ff.). That a genu- 
ine writing of the Apostle Peter, plainly repre- 
senting itself throughout as such (1:1, 14-16, 18 ; 
3:1, 15), should leave not a trace of its existence 
throughout the second century, emerging at last to 
impress the scholars of the third and all succeed- 
ing centuries as the most out of character of all 
New Testament writings, is an extreme improbabil- 
ity. It can no more be met by romances imagining 
the Apostle to have kept his work in temporary con- 
cealment, than the internal evidence can be overcome 
by ignoring the author's dependence on late writings 
and explaining his anti-Gnostic zeal as prophetic 
foresight. 

1 Expositor, 1888, Vol. VIII. 

2 The Apocalypse of Peter ; see A. Harnack, Texte u. Unters., 
ix, 2, 1893, p. 90 f. 



174 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION 



On the Catholic Epistles see Gloag's Introduction to Cath. 
Epp. and the arts, in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (1899) 
and Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899); also Sanday's Bampton 
Lectures on Inspiration, and other general works on New 
Testament Introduction ; on James, Mayor (ut supra) ; on 1 Pet., 
Commentaries by Hort (1 : 1-2 : 17) 1898, and Johnstone (1888), 
and Jones's Studies in 1 Peter (1887); on the Johannine Epis- 
tles, Westcott, The Epistles of St. John. Bibliographies in the 
commentaries. For the teaching of the epistles see the volume 
by Gould, Bib. Theol. of the N. T. in this series. 



PART IV 
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 

CHAPTER VIII 

THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 

The historical books of the New Testament differ Biblical 
from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature as those anonymous, 
of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being 
invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. 
Prophecies, whether in the earlier or later sense, and 
letters, to have authority, must be referable to some 
individual; the greater his name the better. But his- 
tory was regarded as a common possession. Its facts 
spoke for themselves. Only as the springs of com- 
mon recollection began to dwindle, and marked differ- 
ences to appear between the well-informed and accurate 
gospels and the untrustworthy, or when two or more 
of different content were read in the same church, did 
it become worth while for the Christian teacher or 
apologist to specify whether the given representation 
of the current tradition was " according to " this or 
that special compiler, and to state his qualifications. 
Previous to 175 a.d., accordingly, we have only cita- 
tions from " the Gospel " ; x from 175 on, in grow- 
ing number, references to "the Gospel according 
to" (Kara) this or that evangelist, and this or that 

1 Such was the title of Marcion's composition. 
175 



176 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
community (koto, tovs 'E/3paiovs, Kara rovs 'AiyvvTiovs 

KtA.). 1 

The Fourth The term "historical," as here used, does not of 
band's course exclude the express (Jn. 20 : 31) or implied 

purpose of the writers to utilise the material at com- 
mand in the supreme interest of edification nor pre- 
judge the question of credibility. Even the Fourth 
Gospel, aiming, as its beginning and close (1 : 1-18 ; 
20:26-31) expressly teach, simply to interpret a 
doctrine as to the person and work of Christ by selec- 
tions from the tradition of his life and teaching, might 
be held to belong among the " historical books " ; for 
it employs their form of narrative, and is drawn, at 
however late a period and through however divergent 
a channel, from the common stream of Church tradi- 
tion. But the history of the Fourth Gospel in the 
second century no less than its internal characteris- 
tics, and the practice of critics for one hundred years, 
compels us to make a broad distinction between it and 
the three whose singular interconnection, as we have 
seen, justly entitles them to the name "Synoptic." 
For if we represent by one hundred the entire contents 
of all four, the following table 2 will exhibit the 
relation : — 

Peculiarities Coincidences 

Mark 7 93 

Matthew 42 58 

Luke 59 41 

John 92 8 

1 Salmon correctly points out that in some cases at least the 
preposition implies authorship, and not a mere indirect respon- 
sibility; otherwise our "Gospel according to Mark" would 
certainly have been designated "according to Peter"; for 
Justin Martyr already speaks of it as the Memorabilia of Peter 
{Dial. 106). On the other hand, such titles as "Gospel ac- 
cording to the Twelve Apostles," and the like, plainly imply 
that it was also used in the wider sense. 

2 See Westcott's Introd. to the Gospels, p. 191. 



THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 177 

Setting apart, therefore, for later consideration, this 
almost wholly disconnected Gospel of John, 1 there 
remains for solution the problem of mingled peculi- 
arities and coincidences in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 
or the so-called Synoptic problem, and the related 
problem of the Book of Acts. 

Glance at the page of a Synopticon, such as W. G. interreia- 
Kushbrooke's (1880) or A. Wright's (1896), where the ^atthLw 
coincident parts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are Mark, and 
shown in parallel columns, or otherwise, or take an e ' 
ordinary Gospel Harmony in Greek or English. 2 A 
very few moments will show why the problem exists, 
and will help to show why the successive attempts, 
already referred to, 3 to explain it by theories of oral 
tradition, of a primitive gospel, of utilisation by one 
another, are all found inadequate. Even the two- 
document theory, provisionally adopted in one form 
or other by nearly all modern scholars, lacks much of 
meeting all the requirements of the case. 

The first division of Wright's Synopsis includes Coincident 
the general outline of Jesus' career, from baptism to Narrative, 
resurrection, as given in Mark, this gospel being 
given entire in its order, and covering forty-nine 
columns quarto. On the left hand appears the coin- 
cident material of Matthew, paralleling Mark from 
beginning to end, omitting barely one or two brief 
incidents, but rearranging the order in the earlier 
part. On the right is the coincident material of 

1 The ancient Church also recognised the difference, some- 
times grouping the Johannine writings by themselves apart 
from the Synoptic Gospels. So Tertullian repeatedly speaks of 
the " instrumentum Johannis." 

2 Robinson and Gardiner's Greek Harmonies of the Gospels 
will soon be superseded by that of Sanday and Allen in the 
International Commentary series. Stevens and Burton's Eng- 
lish Harmony will serve for ordinary purposes of comparison. 

3 See pp. 7 and 17-20 



178 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Luke, also reproducing the whole of Mark, though 
with the considerable omission of Mk. 6:45-8:26/ 
besides a few minor passages, but with no change of 
order. On whichever side the dependence lies, this 
relation of Mark to Matthew and Luke is inexplicable 
without literary connection; for neither direct know- 
ledge of the facts on the part of the writers them- 
selves, nor oral tradition, can account for the 
selection of the same material, 2 nor the relation of it 
in substantially the same order, and, to a very large 
extent, in the very same words. For the coincidence 
is not only in the material or substance, but in the 
form — as when in the story of the healing of the 
paralytic 3 the curious parenthesis " then saith he to 
the sick of the palsy " is exactly reproduced — and in 
the language, which for whole sentences is word for 
word the same, particularly in the words of Christ. 
And this verbal coincidence extends to rare forms and 
expressions of the Greek, as airapOfj, Matt. 9 : 15 = 
Mk. 2:20 = Lk. 5:35; ydkaBax Oavdrov, Matt. 16:28 
= Mk. 9:l = Lk. 9:27; Z vf iiov<r6ai, Matt. 16:26 = 
Mk. 8:36 = Lk. 9:25; AireKpivaro, Matt. 27:12 = 
Mk. 14 : 61 = Lk. 23 : 9 (elsewhere always airacpffhi) ; 
Suo-koAcos, nowhere but Matt. 19:23 = Mk. 10:23 = 
Lk. 18 : 24. Even if with some we could imagine the 
Twelve settling, by common consent, upon a given 
selection, form, and order of events in the narrative 
they would relate of Jesus' life and teaching, and 

1 On the reason for this omission, see Chapter IX. 

2 First of all "the cities wherein most of his mighty works 
were done" in Matt. 11 : 20 ff. is Chorazin. But none of the 
evangelists steps from the beaten track so much as to mention 
one of these miracles. Almost the same can be said of Beth- 
saida, which comes next in order. Mk. 8 : 22 ff. is the sole 
instance, and is omitted in both Matt, and Lk. For the special 
additions of Lk. , and the order, see below. 

a Matt. 9 : 6 = Mk. 2 : 10 = Lk. 5 :24. 



THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 179 

as committing to memory the ipsissima verba of this 
mechanical scheme, we should still have only an 
agreement in Aramaic, and nothing to account for 
coincidences in the Greek. 1 

The question, therefore, now reduces itself to the 
form : Have our Synoptists borrowed from one another 
for their narrative of Jesus' career, or do they depend 
in common on some older source? 

Passing to Wright's second division of the mate- Discourse 
rial, consisting wholly of discourses of considerable ^^monto 
length, we find it to include some twenty-eight columns Matthew 
of material from Matthew, six-sevenths of which is 
paralleled in Luke. But one-third of this, or two- 
sevenths of the material of Matthew, shows a rela- 
tively close verbal identity. 2 Mark has only here 
and there a touch betraying acquaintance with this 
mass of discourse material. 

Here again the oral tradition theory is helpless, for 
how could the story of the Baptist's message and 
Jesus' reply be orally transmitted in but two ver- 
sions, 3 and these two even in Greek almost word for 
word the same? And why is the case so entirely dif- 
ferent with the Eschatological Discourse? But a 

1 Wetzel (Synopt. Evang., 2 p. 143 f.) seems indeed to assume 
that such a recitation " as to-day in a public school " was actu- 
ally carried on in Greek by Matthew, as special delegate of the 
Twelve, for the benefit of the Hellenistic Jews. But were the 
rest meantime debarred from teaching in Aramaic ? The whole 
representation, pp. 142-146, is most instructive as an illustra- 
tion of the absurdities involved in the attempt to form a his- 
torical conception of the beginnings of an Erzahlungstypus. 

2 E.g. Lk. 3 : 7-9, 17 = Matt. 3 : 7-10, 12 ; Lk. 4 : 26-13 = Matt. 
4 : 2-lla ; Lk. 12 : 22-31 = Matt. 6 : 25-34 ; Lk. 7 : 18-28, 31-35 = 
Matt. 11 : 2—1 1 , 16-19, the other two-thirds being much more 
widely divergent, e.g. Lk. 6 : 206-23 = Matt. 5 : 3-12 ; Lk. 14 : 
15-24 = Matt. 22 : 1-14 ; Lk. 15 : 3-7 = Matt. 18 : 12-14. 

3 Matt. 11 : 2-19 = Lk. 7 : 18-35. 



180 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Explained 
neither by 
oral tradi- 
tion nor 
direct de- 
pendence. 



theory of direct literary dependence throughout the 
two gospels is equally helpless. Our Matthew, if 
borrowing from Luke, would not have omitted the 
parable of the Prodigal Son, 1 nor the miracle of 
Nain. 2 Conversely, the use of Matthew by Luke, 
supported as it is by some admirable scholars, 8 is 
incredible. Gentile indifference on the part of the 
evangelist himself and his readers to the differentia- 
tion of the new righteousness from that of scribe and 
Pharisee might explain the omission of Matt. 5 : 17-43; 
6:1-18; ll:28-30(?); 21:28-32(?); 23:15-22 in 
Lk. ; more easily still in his predecessors 4 ; but (1) 
neither this nor any other motive attributable to our 
Matthew can account for the omission of 13 : 24-30, 
36-52 ; 18 : 23-35 ; 20 : 1-16 ; 25 : 1-13, 31-46. (2) It 
is incredible that Luke should have left the beginning 
and end of his gospel (cc. 1-3, 24; cf. Mt. cc. 1, 2, 
28) in such flagrant contradiction with that he so 
largely depended on, especially if it was believed to 
emanate from the pen of an Apostle. 5 (3) It would 
be impossible to explain why two-thirds of the mate- 
rial, not differing as to content in any definable way 
from the rest, should be entirely recast, while the 
remaining one-third should be taken over almost 
verbatim. 

The common discourse material of Matthew and 

i Lk. 15 : 11-32. 2 Lk. 7 : 11-17. 

3 Even Holtzmann yields to the seductive pages of Simon 
{Hat der dritte EvangH d. can. Mt. benutzt ? 1880) so far as 
to admit that Lk. is affected by reminiscences of Matt. 

4 "Wright, op. cit. p. viii, suggests that in process of convey- 
ance to Lk., from Palestinian to Gentile regions, the Jewish 
features of the tradition were dropped. 

5 This objection does not apply to employment by Lk. of an 
earlier form of Matt. , which had not as yet these peculiar fea- 
tures. But this theory we purposely leave open to further con- 
sideration. 



material. 



THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 181 

Luke, accordingly, requires the assumption of at least 
one underlying written source. The third of the 
above considerations suggests two if not more. 

Turning now from the material common to all three, Peculiar 
or to two only, of the Synoptists to that which is 
peculiar to each, and discriminating as before between 
discourse and narrative, we observe that Mark has 
practically no peculiar material of either kind. 1 But 
what could be more absurd than an evangelist who 
attempts to improve upon a gospel already current by 
simply extracting a part of its contents, and that part 
the smaller and less authoritative, and touching it up 
with a few unimportant embellishments and addi- 
tions ! Could he imagine that his readers would pre- 
fer plagiarising extracts to the rich source from which 
he drew? 2 If his source was Matthew, either he 
would not have written at all, or he would have 
reedited the larger work; most of all, if it was then 
regarded as the work of an Apostle. If his source 
was Luke, what amazing method guided him in the 
selection of his material? The omissions would be 

1 The Demoniac of Capernaum, 1 : 23-28 = Lk. 4 : 33-37, 
fails to appear in Matt. ; but to balance accounts the Demoniac 
of Gerasa, 5 : 1-20, who utters the same remarkable confession, 
is made duplicate in Matt. 8 : 28-34. So of the Dumb man, 
Mk. 7 : 31-37, and the Blind man of Bethsaida, Mk. 8 : 22-26, 
omitted by both Matt, and Lk. To balance accounts, the healing 
of Matt. 12 : 22, which has an identical effect on the multitude, 
includes both blindness and dumbness, though in the parallels 
of 9 : 32 and Lk. 11 : 14 it is dumbness only ; the connected 
blind man of 9 : 27-31 is not only duplicated, but his counter- 
part, 20 : 29-34 = Mk. 10 : 46-52 = Lk. 18 : 35-43 as well. The 
omission of Mk. 4 : 26-29 by Matt, and Lk. is probably due to 
its close resemblance to vss. 30-32 ; that of Mk. 12 : 41-44 
(= Lk. 21 : l^i) by Matt, is unexplained. On Lk.'s omission 
of Mk. 6 : 45-7 : 26, see Chapter IX. 

2 Comprehensiveness was principally sought. See the Papias 
fragment ov yap tois to. irbWa 'Xeyovaiv exaipov w<r?rep oi iroWol. 



182 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Matthew 

wholly, 

Luke partly, 

dependent 

on Mark's 

narrative 

material. 



either way incredible. Not so if we reverse the case. 
Both Matthew and Luke have enough of their own to 
add to Mark to make the recast well worth while. 
The difference is this : Matthew has an exceptionally- 
rich store of discourse material, partly shared by 
Luke, to add, and practically nothing else pertaining 
to Jesus' public career. 1 Luke has a strongly marked 
mass of material, including both narrative and dis- 
course, in rich profusion and of the highest impor- 
tance, entirely peculiar to himself and demonstrably 
extending far on into his second treatise. We need 
mention only in the way of narrative: The Infancy, 2 
The Widow of Nam, 3 The Anointing of the Lord's 
Feet, 4 Mary and Martha, 5 The Crooked Woman, 6 The 
Ten Lepers, 7 Zacchseus, 8 Pilate and Herod, 9 The Peni- 
tent Thief, 10 The Journey to Emmaus ; u in the way of 
discourse : the parables of The Good Samaritan, 12 The 
Eich Fool, 13 The Prodigal Son, 14 The Unjust Steward, 15 

1 Significant in character are the narrative additions of 
Matt. They consist of the following: (a) cc. 1, 2 the gene- 
alogy and infancy of Jesus fulfilling prophecies of Messiah. 
(6) Certain additions of an apocryphal character in the story 
of the Passion and Resurrection : the Suicide of Judas, 27 : 3-8 ; 
Pilate's Wife's Dream, 27 : 19, and his Washing his Hands, vss. 
24, 25 ; the Earthquake and Opening of the Tombs, vss. 516-53 ; 
the Setting and Bribing of the Roman Watch, vss. 62-66 ; 28 : 
11-15. (c) A brief close in general terms to fit the fragmentary 
ending of Mk., Matt. 28 : 16-20 (28 : 9, 10 is a doublet of vss. 7, 
8). (d) Two stories seemingly gathered from floating legend: 
Peter's Walking on the Water, 14 : 28-31, and the Coin in the 
Fish's Mouth, 17 : 24-27. In the account of Jesus' public 
career the only narrative additions to Mk., aside from mere 
duplications and editorial generalities, are the two under (d), 
the Centurion's Servant, 8 : 5-13 = Lk. 7 : 2-10 = Jn. 4 : 46-54; 
and the Rejection of Two Volunteer Disciples, 8 : 18-22 = Lk. 
9 : 57-60. See below. 2 cc. 1-3. 3 7 : 11-17. 

4 7: 36-50. 6 10: 38-42. 6 13:10-17. 7 17: 11-19. 

8 19 : 1-10. 9 23 : 4-19. 10 23 : 39-43. « 24 : 13-35. 

i 2 10 : 25-37. 13 12 : 13-21. " 15 : 11-32. i & 16 : 1-12. 



THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 183 

The Eich Man and Lazarus, 1 The Unjust Judge, 2 
The Pharisee and Publican, 3 and discourses on special 
occasions, such as 4 : 16-30 ; 9:51-56; 13:1-5, etc. 4 

A synopsis of the contents of these three related Logical 
gospels in the form given them by the ultimate f^e s'ynop* 
editor will aid us in perceiving the relation. The tic writings, 
chronological order is doubtless Mark, Matthew, ' ai ' 
Luke, though there is no direct interrelation between 
Matthew and Luke, and the discourse nucleus of 
Matthew is doubtless older than Mark. 

Mark has the following scheme : — 

i. Preliminaries (dpx^ t. evayy.). The Baptism of John 
and Jesus' Call, 1 : 1-13. 

ii. The Galilean Ministry, 1 : 14-8 : 26. 

(a) Jesus' preaching and healing and its effects; 
popularity and opposition, 1 : 14-3 : 12. 

(6) The training and mission of the Twelve to 
preach and heal. The parables. The mighty works, 
3:13-35; 4:1-34; 4:35-6:13. 

iii. The Crisis in Galilee, 6 : 14-8 : 26. 

(a) Episode of Herod and John. Jesus' amazing 
miracles, 6:14-29, 30-56. 

(6) He defies the Pharisees and goes into exile, 
7:1-23. 

(c) [Largely duplicate.] Incidents connected with 
the period of exile, 7 : 24-8 : 26. 

iv. The Journey to the Passover and Jerusalem Min- 
istry, 8 : 27-13 : 37. 

(a) Eevelation of the nature of Jesus' calling, 
8:27-9:13. 

(b) Incidents of the journey through Galilee and 
Peraa, 9:14-10:52. 

i 16 : 19-31. 2 18 : 1-8. 8 18 : 9-14. 

4 For a discussion of the special source of Lk., see Chapter IX. 



184 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

(c) The appeal to Israel at tlie Passover, cc. 11, 12. 

(d) The prediction of the end, c. 13. 

v. The Passion and Resurrection, cc. 14-16. 

The scheme of Matthew modifies the above only in 

2. Matthew. § ii and by constant additions, almost solely of dis- 

course material, as follows : — 

i. Preliminary Story, 1 : 1-4 : 17. 

(a) Birth and childhood of Jesus, cc. 1, 2. 

(b) Ministry of John, baptism and call of Jesus, 
3:1-4:17. 

ii. The Galilean Ministry, 4 : 18-9 : 35. 
(a) The preaching, 4: 18-7 : 29. 
(6) The mighty works, 8:1-9:35. 

(c) The mission of the Twelve, 9:36-10:42. 

(d) Effects: (1) Acceptance by the few and lowly ; 
(2) opposition by the Pharisees; (3) Jesus teaches in 
parables, cc. 11, 12, 13. 

iii. The Crisis and Rejection in Galilee. Jesus founds 
his Church, 14 : 1-16 : 12 ; 16 : 13-18 : 35. 

iv. The Ministry in Peraea and Jerusalem, cc. 19-25. 
v. The Passion and Resurrection, cc. 26-28. 

The scheme of the third Gospel follows the order 

3. Luke. of Mark without transposition, but omits iii (c) and 

intercalates two masses of mingled narrative and dis- 
course in ii (b) and iv (&) with the following result: — 

i. Preliminary Story, cc. 1-3. 

(a) Preface, 1 : 1-4. 

(b) Birth and childhood of John and Jesus, 1:5- 
2:52. 

(c) Ministry of John. Baptism and call of Jesus. 
His pedigree, 3:1-20, 21 f., 23-28. 

ii. The Ministry of the First Period, 4:1-9: 50. 1 

1 In many ways the geographical limits of this period (§ 2 
in Mk.) are obliterated in Lk. By transposing 4:9-13 (cf. 



THE SYNOPTIC TBADITION 185 

(a) Beginning of Jesus' work. Temptation in 
Judaea. Preaching and opposition in Galilee. Call 
of Peter and others, 4 : 1-6 : 10. 

(6) Choosing and instruction of the Twelve, 
6:12-49. 

(c) The witness of Jesus' works appeals to the 
lowly and to John, 7 : 1-8 : 3. 

(d) The rest of Mark's account of the Galilean min- 
istry and crisis, including Peter's confession and the 
connected story, but omitting 3 (c) (incidents of the 
Exile period), 8:4-9: 50. 

iii. The Ministry of the Second (Peraean) Period, 
9:51-18:30. 

(a) A heterogeneous group of incidents and dis- 
courses ending with an eschatology, 9 : 51-13 : 35. 

(b) A second group, principally of discourses exalt- 
ing the lowly, with second eschatological discourse, 
14:1-18:14. 

(c) The rest of Mark's material up to the final jour- 
ney to Jericho and Jerusalem, 18 : 15-30. 

iv. The Ministry of the Final Passover, with Third 
Eschatology, 18 : 31-21 : 38. 

v. The Passion and Resurrection, cc. 22-24. 

This evangelist's second treatise has the following 
scheme : — 4 - Acts - 

i. Founding of the Church in Judaea, Samaria, and 
Syria, and First Attempts to convert the Gentiles. The 
Career of Peter, cc. 1-14. 

(a) Peter and the Apostolic body in Jerusalem. 
Vain opposition of the authorities, and resulting 

Matt.), and inserting " Judsea " in 4 : 44 ; 5 : 17 ; 6 : 17, the field 
is widened to all Palestine, — a step toward the Johannine 
view, — and the Temptation, 4 : 1-14, and incident of Csesarea 
Philippi — though not the locality — included. 



186 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Inferences 
from con- 
tent as to 
sources and 
interrela- 
tion. 



spread of the Gospel, and conversion of the arch- 
persecutor, cc. 1, 2, 3-5; 6:1-9:31. 

(b) Peter inaugurates and justifies the conversion 
of the Gentiles. Antioch a second centre of Chris- 
tianity. Final establishment of the mother church, 
9:32-11:18; 11:19-30; c. 12. 

(c) First missionary journey. Paul and Barnabas 
extend the Gospel from Antioch to Cyprus, Cilicia, 
and Galatia, cc. 13, 14. 

ii. Spread of the Gospel in the Graeco-Roman world. 
Career of Paul, cc. 15-28. 

(a) The basis of Gentile recognition determined by 
the Apostles, 15 : 1-35. 

(6) Paul and Silas evangelise Greece and Procon- 
sular Asia (second and third missionary journeys), 
15:36-19:20. 

(c) Paul goes with the delegates of the Greek 
churches to Jerusalem. His arrest and defences, 
19 : 21-21 : 26 ; 21 : 27-26 : 32. 

(d) Paul's journey to Rome and planting (estab- 
lishment) of the Gospel there, cc. 27, 28. 

Eeturning to the sources of this historical material, 
it appears that the narrative material of Matthew is 
simply that of Mark transferred to form a framework 
for the masses of discourse. Of the 103 narratives 
enumerated by Wright as the content of Mark, 
Matthew contains all but five of the briefest, and has 
more or less distinct parallels to three of these; 1 and 

1 The other two are Mk. 9 : 38 f. and 12 : 41-44, probably 
additions to Mk. later than Matt., but earlier than Lk., for Mk. 
9 : 38 f . interrupts the connection of 37 with 40 (42 ?) ff. (cf. 
Mt. 18:1-6), and 12:41-44 has no relation to what follows, 
and only indirect relation to what precedes — the hypocrisy of 
the scribes, "who for a pretence make long prayers, but de- 
vour widows' houses." For the three duplicated incidents, see 
p. 181 note 1 . 



Mark. 



THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 187 

of narrative material he has practically nothing else, the 
infancy chapters and the trifling additions in 14 : 28- 
31, 17 : 24-27, and c. 27 f . merely emphasising, by 
their peculiar character, the evangelist's poverty in 
this particular. So exact a coincidence is inexpli- 
cable without a knowledge of Mark itself in substan- 
tially its present form ; and it being insupposable that 
the author of Mark should have composed his work 
by merely subtracting the narrative element of 
Matthew, we find here positive proof of dependence 
by our Matthew on our Mark. 1 Equally certain is Matthew 
the dependence of Luke. We have not, indeed, the ^JreraUy 
same coincidence of narrative material here, but, as use our 
above shown, large masses from an unknown source, 
and per contra omissions of Marcan material which 
have suggested theories of a briefer proto-Mark; but 
what the demonstration loses in cogency on this score 
is made up by the carefulness of Luke to preserve the 
original sequence of the narrative. 2 Nor can the 

1 It is important to observe that the proof rests by no means 
on the general phenomena above cited alone. On the contrary, 
the literary dependence of Matt, on Mk. can be proved in 
detail, paragraph by paragraph, as e.g. 13 : 10-23, where the 
parenthesis of Mk. 4 : 10-25, inserted by a trait characteristic 
of this author, is obliterated, while substitution is made in vss. 
34-36. A still more remarkable example occurs in the follow- 
ing chapter, where, the closing bracket of the parenthesis of 
Mk. 6 : 14-29 being obliterated through misunderstanding, the 
story which in 14 : 1 ff. begins as a matter of the past winds up 
in vs. 12 as a matter of the present. 

It should also be observed that the use of our Mk. in sub- 
stantially its present form by no means precludes independent, 
perhaps previous, employment of the sources from which Mk. 
is drawn. 

2 Once the dependence of Matt, on our Mk. is proved, at- 
tempts to account for the relation between Mk. and Lk. in 
some other way (proto-Mark theories, etc.) become a priori 
improbable. 



188 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

omissions of Luke - be due to their absence from 
the Mark he follows, for the contemporary or earlier 
Matthew stands witness of their presence. 
Previous Our survey of the material content of the Synoptic 

firmed. C ° n " Gospels in search of an explanation of their origin has 
thus reduced to a minimum of applicability the once 
cherished theory of oral tradition. 1 That of a proto- 
gospel, from which each evangelist has drawn his 
share of both narrative and discourse material, is 
equally insupposable. We should not know at which 
to marvel most: the disappearance of so supremely 
precious a record; the folly of our evangelists in 
omitting each some of the choicest material, whether 
from their point of view or ours; or the folly of the 
Church in accepting the meagre substitute for the 
whole. 2 The current "two document" theory — our 
Mark and the Logia as the principal sources of 
Matthew and Luke — may, therefore, be considered 
permanently established as giving in outline the ulti- 
mate solution. But no more than "in outline." 
Some theory of one or more underlying collections of 
discourses is indispensable to explain the relation of 
Matthew to Luke; and at least one extensive work, 
containing independent masses of discourse and nar- 
rative together, underlies the whole work of Luke. 

1 The few able advocates it still retains are mainly English 
scholars, notably Westcott (op. cit.) and Wright (op. cit., and 
The Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890). 

2 See the able attempt of Edwin Abbott, Enc. Brit., art. 
"Gospels," and Abbott and Rushbrooke, The Common Tradi- 
tion of the Syn. Gos., to reach an original "triple tradition" 
by elimination of all not common to the three Synoptists. The 
further the process is carried the greater the resemblance of the 
resultant "original written gospel" to our Mk. Says Pods 
(Introd., p. 13), "The approximation of Mk. to the original 
written gospel is one of the most generally accepted findings of 
modern criticism." 



THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 189 

Finally, the relation of Matthew and Luke to Mark 
is inexplicable, save by a theory of mutually inde- 
pendent employment of this proto-gospel or gospels. 

These conclusions will only be strengthened by an From order 
examination of the second striking phenomenon of ofevents - 
the Synoptic tradition, viz. its order of events. Of 
the hopeless confusion which reigned on this score, 
we have not only the eloquent witness of the gospels 
themselves, with their chaos of sequences, but the 
implicit testimony of the author of Luke, and the 
explicit statement of our oldest external authority. 
The words of Papias, reporting his ancient authority, 
are all the more weighty that he himself does his 
utmost to minimise their effect; for practically all he 
reports bears upon this one point — the inaccuracy of 
Mark's order, which was due to his not having been 
himself a follower of the Lord, but, later, of Peter, 
and Peter's discourses not having been given as a 
connected narrative. 1 As we shall see, this testimony 
is strictly in accord with the phenomena of the gos- 
pel itself. The outline of Mark is the very spinal 
column of the entire Gospel tradition; but in Mark Mark's 
both discourses and incidents are grouped almost inva- £opf c r a i. 
riably on a subjective or topical, not a chronological 
plan. 2 And vet Luke, specially desirous as he is of 

1 Discussions of the standard by which Mk.'s inaccuracy of or- 
der was measured are beside the mark, for Papias is reporting a 
tradition old enough to go back to " the living and abiding voice." 

2 Thus the incident 1:40-45 winds up the account of Jesus' 
growing and burdensome popularity, but obviously is taken by 
prolepsis from a much later time, for in what follows Jesus is 
still teaching in cities and synagogues, 2:1; 3:1; 6 : 1-6. 
The section 2 : 1-3 : 6 again extends in both directions beyond 
the apparent limits, grouping together a series of conflicts, of 
which the last (3 : 6) would make further teaching, such as is 
described in 6 : 6, impossible. The series of teachings, 4 : 1-34, 
followed by that of mighty works, 4 : 35-6 : 6, simply illus- 



190 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



But fol- 
lowed by- 
Matthew 
and Luke. 



remedying this defect of the tradition, carefully 
" tracing up all things from the very first that he may 
set them down in (chronological) order," clings to 
this order of Mark as the one Ariadne thread of the 
labyrinth; while even Matthew never ventures to 
depart from it from the point where he ceases his 
general description of Jesus' teaching and mighty 
works, and the unfavourable reception accorded them 
in Galilee, cc. 4-13. Even here, the order is mani- 
festly not historical, but literary, in fact, it is the 
same general scheme as in the section of Mark referred 
to in our note, 3 : 7-6 : 13, only much more mechani- 
cally carried out ; (a) the teaching (cc. 5-7), addressed 
to a vast multitude, though as yet Jesus' fame has 
had no opportunity to spread, 1 and arranged upon a 
stereotyped, numerical plan; (6) a chain of ten mira- 
cles (cc. 8, 9), so selected that each class is illustrated 
by one example. 2 After this, (c) the mission of the 

trates the training of the Twelve, whose appointment for this 
purpose (3 : 14, 15) is related in 3 : 7-35. But neither did the 
incident of "the scribes who came down from Jerusalem," 
with the associated intervention of Jesus' mother and brethren, 
3 : 20-35, occur at this time (cf. 7 : 1 ff. and Lk. 11 : 14-54 = 
Matt. 12:22-50; 15:1-20, and see B. Weiss, Mkev., 1872, p. 
127 note) ; nor can the subsequent series of mighty works have 
all followed in chronological order. 

1 By carrying back the introductory description, 4 : 23-25 = 
Mk. 3 : 7-12, from its proper position after Mk. 1 : 14-45 ; 2 : 1- 
3 : 6, Matt, has deprived it of all proper sense. It has no expla- 
nation in what precedes, for Jesus has done nothing to excite 
such extraordinary fame ; nor does it agree with what follows, 
for the true Sermon on the Mount (nucleus of cc. 5-7) was 
delivered not to the mixed multitude, but to the disciples. 
But note that when cc. 5-7 are removed, with their Marcan 
setting (Matt. 4 : 18-25 ; 8 : 1-4), we obtain in 4 : 12-17 ; 8 : 5- 
10 a connection not only natural in itself but in agreement 
with Jn. 4:46ff. (2:12). 

2 Thus the "mighty deeds," for unbelief in which, in c. 11, 
the people are upbraided, while John in prison and the humble 



THE SYNOPTIC TBABITION 191 

twelve disciples, whose selection, however, the evan- 
gelist has omitted to mention, to preach and heal in 
like manner (c. 10). This is followed (d) by Jesns' 
commendation of the Baptist and rebuke of unbeliev- 
ing Israel, above mentioned (c. 11), and (e) his adop- 
tion, after a series of conflicts with the scribes and 
Pharisees (c. 12), of the method of parables to 
instruct the multitude (c. 13). 

While there are subordinate groups here, which have Variations 
no relation to the general scheme (e.g. 8 : 1-4, 5-13, ex P llcab e - 
14-17, followed by 18-22), it is clear that the plan is 
literary, not historical. 1 Yet this arbitrary scheme 
is all that the Synoptic Gospels afford of divergence 
from the order of Mark, save for the occasional timid 
attempts of Luke to correct palpable dislocations, 
sometimes making confusion worse confounded. 2 

Oral tradition, in the sense of such preaching as 
Papias describes, undoubtedly accounts for the Inferences. 
Church's condition of helpless confusion as to the ] ol f c Z^^' 
sequence of events in the life of Jesus, after the death gospel. 

"babes" are encouraged, are each exhibited in turn — "the 
blind see (9 : 27 f.), the lame walk (8 : 5 f. ; 9 : 1 f.), the lepers 
are cleansed (8:1 ff. ) , the deaf hear (9 : 32 f . ) , the dead are 
raised up (9:18 f., 23 f.), and the poor have glad tidings 
preached unto them (9 : 35)." 

1 Cf. e.g. 8:1, "great multitudes" with 8:4a, "tell no 
man " ; and 8 : 14, which, as we see from Mk. 1 : 14-34, should 
follow Matt. 4 : 22. 

2 As an example of correction, cf . Lk. 3 : 19 with Mk. 6 : 14- 
29, and contrast the va-repov -wporepov of Matt. 11:2; 14:3. 
For confusion cf. Lk. 4 : 16-30 with Mk. 6 : 1-6 ; but see vss. 
23 and 31 ff. Observe also Lk. 5 : 1-11 following 4 : 31-44 = 
Mk. 1 : 21-49. In substituting the narrative of the call of 
" Peter and those with him " for the call of the four, Mk. 1 : 16- 
20, Lk. failed to observe that in Mk. the relation established in 
1 : 16-20 explains those of vss. 29 ff., so that the Simon of Lk. 
4 : 38, whose house Jesus enters and whose wife's mother he 
heals, became a wholly unknown character. 



192 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



2. The tra- 
dition veri- 
fied: first 
attempts 
logia ; 
Mark the 
first narra- 
tive of note. 



of the principal witnesses, and accounts for it rightly 
and naturally. But only upon the assumption that 
no Apostolic proto-gospel or authoritative biography 
was in existence. Doubtless, at first only the testi- 
mony of the Lord himself was deemed worthy of 
written record, forming collections of aphorisms and 
memorable sayings after the plan of the Pirke Aboth 1 
or the Oxyrhynchus fragment improperly called the 
Logia, while the varying groups of narratives, which 
would form the testimony of Apostles and other wit- 
nesses to his wonderful works, deeds of wisdom and 
mercy, death and resurrection, went through a much 
longer process of sifting, combination, and editing 
before attaining a quasi-authoritative form and con- 
tent, such as now appears in the Synoptic material. 
Until the strictly Apostolic witnesses began to dis- 
appear, this material would be largely unwritten, 
and altogether too free and copious for codification. 
Men would rely on the memory of the preacher, or 
even, as in Acts 10 : 37 ff., on general information and 
report, for the thread of narrative needful to explain 
and bind together the pearls of logia, which taught 
the Way of Life. The greater difficulty and conse- 
quent delay in reducing this mass (cf . Lk. 1:1; Jn. 
21 : 25) explains, in a manner as completely natural 
as it is harmonious with the primeval tradition, the 
almost servile dependence of both our chief authori- 
ties for their order on the sequence of Mark, the 
reported "interpreter" of Peter. Imperfect and 
subjective as it was admitted to be, it was the 
nearest approach to a written standard; so that our 
"Matthew" and "Luke " vary from it only in a few 
instances, mostly such as show their conjectural 

1 The oldest tractate of the Talmud, a collection of apho- 
ristic sayings handed down by tradition mostly from pre-Chris- 
tian Jewish Fathers. 



« THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 193 

character upon their face. The tradition reported by 
Papias is therefore exactly in accord with the phe- 
nomena, including others not here mentioned, such as 
the striking coincidence of language where the words 
of Jesus are given, tending to disappear as soon as 
the narrative framework is reached. 1 Whether the 
Fourth Gospel, if known as Apostolic, would have 
furnished the sought-for standard, is a question by 
itself. But it is not a supposable case that our 
Matthew, or any similar biographical gospel com- 
prising both sayings and doings, widely known and 
acknowledged as from the hand of an Apostle, 
afforded the desired authoritative standard of order, 
yet was unknown to, or disregarded by, both Mark and 
Luke. We scarcely need the host of evidences prov- 
ing the Greek origin of our Matthew ; its dependence 
on our Mark and the sources thereof, its composite 
character, exhibiting as it does no less than twenty- 
two instances of the same incident or saying twice 
told in slightly different forms, 2 with others similar, 
in view of this culminating fact. The primeval and 
widespread tradition of the Church needs not correc- 
tion, but restatement. It maintained, we should 
remember, that the work of the Apostle Matthew had 
been a compilation, in Papias 's day no longer extant, 
of "the sayings of the Lord," in express distinction 
from such narratives as Mark and Luke, the former of 
whom undertook, with however scanty qualification 
for "giving a connected account of the Lord's say- 
ings," 8 to "write down accurately everything that he 

i Cf. e.g. Mk. 10 : 32-34 with Matt. 20 : 17-19 ; Lk. 18 : 31- 
34 in the respective parts. 

2 E.g. Matt. 9 : 27-31 = 20 : 29-34, or 12 : 38, 39 = 16 : 1, 2. 

3 The Lord's teaching was always the object in view, whether 
in the report of the word itself or the accompanying explana- 
tory narrative. 

o 



criticism . 



194 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

remembered . . . whether things said or things done " 
of the narrations of Peter. The latter, Luke, him- 
self informs us (Acts 1 : 1) that his earlier work was 
intended as a narrative of Jesus' earthly career com- 
plete, "both doings and teachings," and that the ques- 
tion of the " order " had been a matter of special care 
(Lk. 1:3). 

Results of Independently the critic arrives at the following 

explanation of the literary phenomena: (1) A com- 
pilation of Logia by the Apostle Matthew, early cur- 
rent in many forms, and (2) the biography of Mark 
constitute the foundation of the Gospel tradition of 
later times and two of the most important sources of 
Luke. In its slow, but more and more confident and 
universal adoption of this two-document theory, as its 
fundamental position on the Synoptic problem, the 
criticism of to-day may well be said to be going " back 
to tradition." We shall see, however, that these two 
facts, while the most fundamental, are by no means 
sufficient to explain the complex history of the forma- 
tion of the Synoptic tradition. 1 

1 For statistics bearing on the problem, see Hawkins, Horce 
Synopticce, 1899. Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, and 
Westcott, Introduction to the Four' Gospels, 1895, are among 
the best of the older special works in English. 0. Cone, Gospel 
Criticism and Hist. Christianity is the best recent compendium. 
E. Abbott, Badham, Carpenter, and A. Wright have discus- 
sions in support of particular views. Wilkinson's Four Lectures 
on the early History of the Gospels, and Baring-Gould's Lost 
and Hostile Gospels have special features of value. Very 
recently (1899) J. Palmer discusses The Gospel Problems and 
their Solution. Articles of value on the " Synoptic Problem," 
by Sanday, may be found in Smith's B. D., 2d ed., also in 
the Expositor, Series IV, Vol. Ill, and by H. H. Wendt in the 
New World for June, 1895. Biblical Introduction, 1900, 0. T. 
by Bennett, N. T. by Adeney, should have been mentioned before 
among popular general works. The discussion of the Synoptic 
problem is excellent. 



CHAPTER IX 

THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 

As yet we have but touched the surface of the Syn- 
optic problem; but we have reached common ground 
for tradition and criticism, disembarrassed of several 
untenable theories. From this standpoint, however, 
it is apparent that our gospels have already a long 
history behind them of compilation, accretion, read- 
justment of material from various sources, which 
makes even our present working theory quite too 
simple to account for all the phenomena. Indeed, we 
might have guessed at such a past from the fact that 
while the author of Lk. 1 : 1 was acquainted with 
many attempts to draw up a comprehensive narrative 

of the facts {a.va.T a^aadai StrjyrjaLv twv Trpay/xdroyv), in One 

way or another, our three Synoptic Gospels have man- 
aged to take up all the material of any value, of which 
traces remained until the second century. As we 
might expect from the many variant forms of our first Literary 
gospel, which early circulated in Palestine, from the ^Mattl eS 
internal evidence and testimony of tradition as to the 
extremely early origin of the more essential element 
of its content, and from the fact that to at least an 
important section of the Church and for a considerable 
time it continued to be " the Gospel " par eminence, 
the traces of a checkered career of editorial amplifi- 
cation, recasting, modification are more marked in 
Matthew than in any other. Only the process of 
translation of the Logia nucleus from the Aramaic 
195 



196 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

(Hebrew ?), the one universally attested fact of early 
Church tradition, has left no traces. Nor can this be 
accidental. Not only would such traces be more 
incapable of eluding research than those of any other 
process, but by positive evidence, now universally 
admitted to be conclusive, 1 our Gospel, in all its parts, 
was originally a Greek gospel. "Since, then," says 
Professor Salmon, " our Greek gospel bears marks of 
not being a mere translation, we must choose between 
the hypotheses that we have in the Greek the gospel 
as written by Matthew himself, or the gospel as 
written by an unknown writer who used as his prin- 
cipal material an Aramaic writing by St. Matthew, 
which has now perished." In defiance of primitive 
tradition Salmon adopts the former alternative. 
With more reasonable conservatives, such as West- 
cott, Godet, Weiss, Zahn, and Dalman, we hold that 
The the Apostle wrote his work in Aramaic, and only 

Aramaicf Aramaic, 2 and that the subsequent Greek edition, by 
work. 

1 Holtzmann, Einl., z p. 377: "The Greek original of the 
first Gospel is now absolutely assured." Keim, Life of Christ, 
i, 77: "Hardly any one now believes that this Gospel was 
written in Hebrew. Dods, Introd. p. 18 : " One of the ascer- 
tained conclusions of criticism." Most apologists assume two 
gospels by Matt., the later in Greek. See Gardiner, in Journ. 
Bibl. Lit., 1890, p. 1 ff.). Besides the adoption of the whole 
mass of our Greek Mk., and coincidence in the Greek of the 
discourse material of Lk., we have as evidence the citations 
from the 0. T., which conform usually to the LXX. even more 
closely than in Mk. in the body of the work. Only in the 
editorial supplements are there traces of acquaintance with the 
Hebrew, and even here, e.g. 1 : 23, the inferences drawn often 
depend entirely on the use of the LXX. It is needless to refer 
to plays upon words (Greek), explanations of Palestinian cus- 
toms (27 : 15 ; 28 : 15 ; 22 : 23), etc. 

2 See the thorough discussion in Zahn, Einl. , Vol. II (1899), 
IX, § 54, also B. Weiss, Introd., Vol. II, pp. 228 ff., Eng. tr., 
but especially Dalman, Worte Jesu, Bd. I, 1898. 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 197 

an unknown hand, was a representative, rather than 
a translation of the original, probably supplemented 
by a considerable amount of narrative material. In 
other words, the process of translation has left no 
traces in our gospel because, strictly, the history of 
our gospel does not reach back so far. Yet, in con- 
sideration of what may be called its prehistoric 
period, we may venture to treat it first in order, with- 
out deciding for the present whether its first appear- 
ance as a complete biographical Greek gospel preceded 
or followed that of Mark. 

Every indication favours and nothing opposes the its char- 
primitive tradition attributing the Aramaic compila- j^ r and 
tion of Logia to the Apostle Matthew ; the character 
of the writing, its language, its occasion (departure 
of authoritative teachers), the relative insignificance 
of the name, 1 the occupation of publican, 2 even the 
fact that but for the change here and in 10 : 3 from 
the form of Mk. 2 : 14 ; 3 : 18 we should not know that 
Matthew was the publican Levi, son of Alphseus. 
For this change may safely be attributed to that 
editor who embodied the contents of Mark. Doubt- 
less we may also accept the statement that the Apostle 
put forth his work as he was about to leave Jerusa- 
lem; 8 for authorities agree as to this. Irena3us, by 
far the oldest and best authority, is followed by Euse- 
bius in his History in making this " departure " the 
flight of the Church from Jerusalem just before the 
siege (66-67 a.d.). In his Chronicle, however, Euse- 
bius dates the composition in 41 a.d., apparently 

1 As against Peter, John, James, to -which a multitude of 
apocryphal writings attach themselves. 

2 Mt. 9 : 9. 

8 See the quotation from Irenaeus above, p. 47, and cf. 
Euseb., Hist., 3 : 5 and 24 ; also Chronicon, ad an. ii. Gaii = 

41 A.D. 



198 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

following a different tradition, which identified the 
" departure " with the traditional going forth of the 
Twelve from Jerusalem, according to a pretended 
commandment of Jesus, 1 "after twelve years" (i.e. 
from the crucifixion, generally dated by the Fathers 
in 29 a.d.). Both the weight of authority and the 
absence from the Pauline Epistles 2 of any trace of 
such a compilation favour the date of Irenaeus 
(66 a.d.) as that of the foundation of gospel-writing 
in general, and of the growth of our gospel in 
particular. 3 
Its relation Since the abandonment of the identity of our 
Matt r Matthew with the work referred to by Papias's 

informant, the efforts of conservative writers are 
naturally directed to the inclusion of as large a part 
as possible of the narrative element of this gospel. 
We need not recapitulate the difficulties already men- 
tioned, which increase in force as we attempt to 
extend the Logia in this direction. To say nothing 
of the dependence on Mark, the very scheme of our 
Matthew is such as no Apostle could possibly have 
framed. What we may call the outer envelope, 
cc. 1, 2, 28 : 9-20, with the kindred element in c. 27 
(vss. 3-8, 19, 24 f., 516-53, 62-66) and 14:28-31; 
17:24-27, besides its markedly apocryphal and leg- 
endary character, gives clear evidence of a date not 

1 Kerygma Petri, fragment in CI. A., Strom. 6 : 5, 43. 

2 The case is different with Jas. , and perhaps 1 Pt. and the 
Pastoral Epistles. 

3 There were doubtless earlier unauthoritative writings re- 
garding words and deeds of Jesus, but among his authorised 
representatives writings of an evangelic character would be 
strongly discouraged by two considerations: (i.) the writing 
down of the teachings of a rabbi was regarded as a shameful 
offence. They must be preserved memoriter, lest they encroach 
upon the sacred prerogative of " Scripture." (ii.) The second 
coming was expected almost momentarily. 



form of 
Matt. late. 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 199 

earlier than 80-90 a.d. It seems to be connected 
with that final recast of the gospel which, besides 
absorbing the whole of Mark, has thrown the mate- 
rial into an artificial numerical scheme, 1 and left 
innumerable marks of editorial manipulation and 
piecing. 2 Luke either treated the "envelope" with 
contempt, 3 or, far more probably, had never heard of 
these data. The reference to the destruction of Jeru- Present 
salem, most incongruously inserted in 22 : 6 f . (cf . 
Lk. 14:21 ff.), the sacramental formulae, 26:28 (cf. 
Mk. 14:24) and 28:19 (trinitarian) adjusted to the 
later practice, 4 the rule of procedure in the discipline 

1 For the scheme of 4 : 18-9 : 35 ; 9 : 36-13 : 58, see p. 190. 
In cc. 14-18, cc. 19-25, and cc. 26-28 the events and order are 
from Mk. Corresponding to these five periods of the ministry 
are five masses of discourse material agglomerated into arti- 
ficial groups : (i.) the Sermon on the Mount, cc. 5-7 (original 
separate discourses in Lk. 6 : 20 ff. ; 11 : 1-13 ; 12 : 13-34, etc.) ; 
(ii.) Mission of the Twelve, c. 10 (original discourses in Lk. 
10:1-12; 12:1-12, etc.) ; (iii.) Parables, c. 13 (note the ad- 
dendum, vss. 44 ff. to make seven Parables ; cf. vss. 34-36) ; 
(iv.) Woes against Pharisees, c. 23 (taken from the Denuncia- 
tion in Galilee, Lk. 11 : 37-54 = Mk. 7 : 1-23, and the Warning 
against Pharisaism in Jerusalem, Lk. 20 : 45-47 = Mk. 12 : 38- 
40) ; (v.) Esckatology, cc. 24, 25 (original discourses in Lk. 12 : 
35-13 : 9 ; 17 : 20-18 : 7 ; 21 : 5-36, etc.). For numerical prag- 
matism in detail, note 1 : 1-17, three divisions of 2 x 7 genera- 
tions ; 5 : 21-48, five new laws of the second table ; 6 : 1-18, 
three works of righteousness ; cc. 8, 9, ten mighty works ; 13 : 
1-52, seven parables ; 23 : 13-32, seven woes, etc. 

2 In addition to the twenty-two duplications above cited 
(p. 193), the agglomerated discourses, and the addendum, 13: 
44 ff. , after 13 : 34-36 of the preceding note, observe the sepa- 
ration of 4 : 18-22 from 8 : 14-17, "when even was come," 8 : 16 
(cf. Mk. 1 : 21, 32), and the colophon of vs. 17 ; etc. 

3 Cf. Lk. cc. 1-3 and 24 ; Cor. 1 : 18 f.; 2 : 38 ; 10 : 48, etc. 

4 First occurrence of baptism in the name of the Trinity in 
At5. and Justin M. For the earlier practice cf . Acts 2 : 38 ; 8 : 
16 ; 10 : 48 ; 19 : 5 ; 1 Cor. 1 : 13 ; 6 : 11 ; Gal. 3 : 27 ; Rom. 6 : 3. 



200 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

of "the Church," 18:17,* and the frequent adjust- 
ment of the narrative to the exact wording of the Old 
Testament (e.g. 19:18; 21:2 ff.; 27:34, 43 [=Wisd. 
2 : 18 ] ) are by no means the only internal evidences of 
the lateness of this editorial recast. 2 
Elements We cannot even allow that the whole of the dis- 

theTor k™ course material is derived from the Logia; some of 
the omissions of Luke would otherwise be unaccount- 
able, as well as the fact that two-thirds of the coin- 
cident discourse material shows so abrupt a difference 
in the degree of divergence. 

Other considerable portions of the discourse element 
omitted by Luke, however, must have belonged to the 
Logia, 3 and we gladly accept the careful demonstra- 

1 Cf. the insertion of the parables of the tares among the 
wheat, 13 : 22-30, 37-43, and the net, 13 : 47-50 ; the wedding- 
garment in 22 : 11-14 ; the term iKK\r)<rLa ; and the interest in 
church discipline generally in c. 18. 

2 If we may judge from the generalising character of 28 : 16- 
20, it is simply one of the many attempts to supply the missing 
ending of Mk. (cf. v. 16 with Mk. 16 : 7, in contrast with Matt. 
28 : 7). The genuine ending must have gone on to relate the 
rehabilitation of Peter in fulfilment of the angel's promise (v. 7; 
note "and Peter," and cf. Lk. 24 : 34 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 5, and Gos- 
pel of Peter, close) substantially as in Jn. 21 : 15-19. When 
Matt. 28 : 16-20 was written this account was therefore already 
lost. 

The turning of the point of the parable 21 : 33-41, originally 
directed against the unworthy rulers (cf. v. 41 and Mk. 12 : 9, 
12), by means of v. 43 into a rejection of the nation, shows an 
editor who looks back on the national humiliation. The intro- 
duction of "the Pharisees " in v. 45 to share the blame shows 
who are his present antagonists. 

3 Lk. 6 : 20-49 is far more correct as a representation of the 
actual Sermon on the Mount than the heterogeneous agglomera- 
tion of Matt. cc. 5-7. Nevertheless it is incorrect in omitting 
Matt. 5 : 17-22, 27, 28, 31, 32a, 33-41 ; 6 : 1-6, 16-18, which 
form the negative side of the argument (cf . Lk. 6 : 27a with 
iy<b S£ X^yw, Matt. 5: 22 etc.). Other instances might be cited. 



THE SYNOPTIC WBITEBS 201 

tion of B. Weiss that certain elements of the narra- 
tive are by no means merely borrowed from Mark, 
but by their greater simplicity and brevity, as well as 
by the repeated support of Luke in minute variations, 
prove their independence, if not their priority. 1 But 
the proportion of this pre-Marcan narrative element 
of Matthew, which can have belonged originally with 
the Logia, is very minute indeed. 

1 E.g. Matt. 15 : 21-28 is more original than Mk. 7 : 24-30, 
which omits the obnoxious verses Matt. 15:23, 24; Matt. 20: 
22 f . than Mk. 10 : 38-40, which works in Lk. 12 : 50. The 
supposed " abridgment " of Mk. by Matt, ignores important 
facts and is not the invariable practice of Matt, himself. In 
Matt. 8 : 2-4 = Mk. 1 : 40-45 it is Mk. who embellishes, as 
proved by Lk. ; cf . Lk. 5 : 12 f. with Matt. vs. Mk. A consid- 
erable number of similar passages can be cited, especially in 
Matt. 8 : 23-34 ; 9 : 18-26, where but for dprl ireXevrrjaev (ren- 
der with Mk. ia-xarus e% e the simplicity of Matt, is original. 
In Matt. 14 : 1-13 the few words of the original can be restored 
from Lk. 9 : 7, and ran as follows : *H.Kovaev 8Z 'Hpy'Sijs did rb 
\4ye<rdai, 'Iwdvys yjyipdr] £k veKpQv. 'O yap 'HpyS^s aireKt<pa.\i<iev 
'iwdvijv iv rrj <pv\a,Krj. Kal ol p.a0T)Tal clvtov (SC. 'Irjcrod, misunder- 
stood by Matt. 1 ") i\d6vres dwriyyeikav t$ 'Itjctov kt\. The added 
material in Mk. 6 : 14-29 is derived from popular romance. 
Again in Mk. 8 : 34-9 : 1, in 9 : 33-37, in 10 : 10 f., in 10 : 15, it 
is Mk. who imports the foreign material. The parallels of Matt. 
in 16 : 13-28, in 18: 1-4, in 19 : 1-8, and 13-15 would have been 
irreproachable but for a later hand which has introduced from 
Mk. Matt. 16 : 24 f. ; 18 : 5 f. ; 19 : 9, in every case introducing 
a second time and at a wrong place a passage already con- 
tained in the gospel, viz. Matt. 10 : 39 (cf. Lk. 17 : 33 ; Jn. 12 : 
25 f.) ; Matt. 10 : 40 ; Matt. 5 : 30 (misplaced) ; Matt. 5 : 31 f. 
Of these all but 5 : 30 stand in their true connection. Other 
examples might be cited. 

Further evidences that Matt, had already received narrative 
additions before final supplementation from Mk. may be found 
in 8 : 1-22, a section calculated to follow 4 : 18-22 in the order 
4 : 18-22 . . . 8 : 14-16 (17), 15-13 (cf. Lk. 7 : 1-10 ; Jn. 4 : 46-54 
6 : 1 ff.), 18 ff., but broken up by the present artificial order. 
Similarly 13 : 34 ff. , etc. See below on Lk. 



202 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION 

Results as to The history of our gospel appears, therefore, to 
tion and " include three stages : (i) Matthew 1 , the Aramaic 
type of Logia, almost entirely without narrative framework; 

(ii) Matthew", an edition in Greek supplied with an 
outline of the public ministry and passion, and a very 
sparing enrichment of the discourses ; (iii) Matthew" 1 , 
a complete recast grouping the discourse material 
(with additions) into five great masses, taking up the 
additional material of Mark, retouching much of the 
parallel material of Matthew", and supplying some 
legendary accretions in connection with the external 
envelope already described. 

From the characterisation of the gospel by Irenaeus 
(Frg. 29), as intended "to prove to the circumcision 
that Jesus was their expected Messiah," down to that 
of Kostlin, which adds, "although Israel refused to 
recognise him as such," there has never been entire 
failure to recognise the circle from which this gospel 
emanated and to which it is addressed. Jewish 
Christian only in the innocent sense of the Epistle of 
James, without a trace of hostility to Paul, and fully 
recognising that the prerogative of Israel must pass 
to a worthier people, 1 brought in from the Gentiles, 2 
it retains many traces of the undeveloped particular- 
ism 3 and Jewish coloration 4 of the earliest days. 
Salvation comes by keeping the moral commandments 
of Scripture as interpreted by the new Law of Love. 
To be "perfect," Christ's example of unlimited self- 
sacrifice must be followed. 5 He is the Son of David, 6 

1 21 : 43 ; 22 : 7 ; 27 : 24, 25. 

2 2 : 11, 12 ; 3:9; 8 : 10-12 ; 12 : 21 ; 15 : 28 ; 21 : 28-32 ; 22 : 
1-10 ; 28 : 19. 

3 5 : 47 ; 7 : 6 [?] ; 10 : 5, 6, 23 ; 15 : 22-27 ; 18 : 17 ; 19 : 28. 
* 5 : 23, 24, 35 ; 17 : 24-27 ; 23 : 1-3, 16-22. 

5 19 : 16-21 ; cf. 5 : 17-48 ; 23 : 1-3. 

6 1 : 1-17, 20 ; 2 : 1 etc. So called eight times, four times " king 
of the Jews" (2 : 2 ; 21 : 5 ; 25 : 31 f. ; 27 : 11). 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 203 

foretold, by the prophets, King and Saviour of the 
scattered flock of Israel, 1 and Judge of the world. 2 
On the other hand, no gospel is so relentless in its Anti-rab- 
denunciation of the blind guides of nornism, who are binic. 
to blame for the perversion of Israel from its salva- 
tion, 3 while the constant appeal to Scripture fulfil- 
ment 4 is but one of many signs that the struggle 
is against the scribe and Pharisee of the rabbinic 
period. 5 

That which is of supreme importance to us, how- 
ever, is the admirable fidelity with which the teach- 
ing of Jesus is reproduced, scarcely altered even by 
the crucial events of 66-70 a.d. 6 The few exceptions 
are mostly mere minute alterations or resettings of 
genuine sayings. 7 

When Lk. 1 : 1 was written John Mark was by no Mark, 
means the only " minister of the word " 8 who had its author 
already "taken in hand to draw up a comprehensive origin, 
narrative" of the facts delivered by the eye-wit- 
nesses; but his was the most important, or it would 
not have been made the framework of Lk. 4 : 31-24 : 9. 

i 10:6; 15:24. 2 25:31,32. 8 c. 23. 

*1:22 £ ; 2: 61, 17 f., 23; 3 : 3 ; 4 : 14 ; 8:17; 12:17-21; 
13 : 35 ; 21 : 4, 5 ; 27 : 9, 10. 

6 Cf. 3 : 7 ; 16 : 1, 6, 11, 12 [vs. Lk. 3 : 7 ; Mk. 8:5]; 15 : 20 ; 
6 : 1-18 ; 9 : 13 ; 11 : 28 f. ; 12 : 5-7, 38 ; 16 : 1 [vs. Lk. 11 : 16 j 
Mk. 8 : 11] ; 21 : 45 ; 22 : 41 ; 23 : 1 ft, 35, 36. 

e Cf. 24 : 15-20 with Lk. 21 : 20, 21, and 24 : 29 with Lk. 21 : 
24, where even Mk. omits evdiws. 

i 12 : 40 ; 16 : 18 ; 18 : 17 ; 19 : 17 (cf. Mk. 10 : 18 ; Lk. 18 : 
19) ; 21 : 43. Even 12 : 40, which Westeott and Hort them- 
selves are disposed to regard with suspicion, is probably only 
altered from the form Lk. 11 : 30. Matt. 17 : 24-27 is a para- 
doxical logion ; genuine, but probably avoided because supposed 
to imply a grotesque miracle. Matt. 22 : 6 f . is the only in- 
stance of perversion. 

8 viTTjpeT^s, applied specifically to Mk. in Acts 13 : 5. 



204 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

He was the son of a certain Mary, in whose house 
in Jerusalem we find the infant Church assembled. 1 
This house, to which Peter, when released, at once 
betakes himself, may well have been that of the 
famous " upper room " ; 2 whence the step is easy to 
the conclusion that the nameless lad who, roused from 
his couch by the midnight band of Judas seeking 
their victim, ran to give the alarm, arriving at Geth- 
semane just too late, 3 was John Mark himself, who in 
these singular verses has left, as has been poetically 
said, "the artist's autograph in an obscure corner of 
the painting." Barnabas was his mother's brother,* 
and he thus came into association with Paul, 5 but 
turned back to Jerusalem, to Paul's displeasure, when 
only the first part of the first missionary journey was 
accomplished. 6 Barnabas, nevertheless, subsequently 
took him with him, and, as in Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 
4 : 11 he again appears in friendly relations with 
Paul, the fault must have been forgiven. Col. 4:10 
is sometimes regarded as indicating the beginning of 
his relation with Peter, of which the only other trace 
in the New Testament is 1 Pet. 5 : 13 (but cf . Acts 
12 : 12), where both the expression " my son " and 
" Babylon " are doubtless to be understood figuratively, 
as all antiquity agrees. Borne, in fact, is both tra- 
ditionally the place of origin of the gospel and is 
suggested by the internal evidence. 7 

1 Acts 12 : 12. 2 Acts 1 : 13 f . ; Lk. 22 : 8-13. 

3 Mk. 14 : 51 f. * Col. 4 : 10. 

6 Acts 12 : 25 ; 13 : 5. <* Acts 15 : 37-39. 

7 Note the explanation of Jewish expressions and words (3 : 
17, 22; 5:41; 7 : 11, 34 ; 9:43; 10:46; 14:36; 15:22, 34, 
42) and Jewish customs (7 : 3, 4 ; 14 : 12). A Roman origin is 
particularly indicated by the addition 10 : 12, based on a pecul- 
iarity of Roman law, the Grecized Latinisms 2 : 4, 9, 11 ; 5:9, 
15 ; 6 : 27, 37, 55 ; 7:4, 8 ; 12 : 14 ; 14 : 5 ; 15 : 15, 39, 44, 45, 
and the explanation in 12 : 42 that two \eirrd make a quadrans. 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 205 

As before, the remarkable modesty of the claims Character 

put forth in tradition on behalf of the gospel as the \ n ancient 
. i ■ tradition, 

compilation of Peter's interpreter" after his death 

in Borne, is the guarantee of their antiquity. Indeed, 
from Papias down what seems to strike the historical 
critic is that the claim is too modest, and the " order " 
of this gospel is so much better than any of the other 
three that it almost requires us to assume that the 
material must have undergone readjustment, perhaps 
expansion, since the tradition was formulated. 1 But 
of this we have no evidence; for, unlike Matthew, 
this gospel seems to have had no uncanonical rivals 
to its title, and, when employed by Matthew, must 
have had substantially the same content as now. The 
original ending is lost, 16 : 9-20 being wanting in the 
best manuscripts, and now known to have been taken 
from the work of Aristo, and the " shorter ending " 
of other texts merely patching the gap indicated by 
14:27-31, 66-72, and 16:7. But if additions have 
been made to the original they were of the slightest. 2 
If we ask why a gospel which of all the four sup- 
plies the best outline of Jesus' public career, preserv- 
ing even a good degree of historical perspective, 
should have borne the reputation of being deficient in 
order, the answer must be that the author of this 
early criticism was not thinking of the general out- 
line, which was a common possession 3 already appar- 
ently so stereotyped as to have fastened the great 

1 Reuss and others regard the tradition of the Presbyter as 
referring to a simple narrative underlying our Mk. 

2 Mk. 9 : 38-40 and 12 : 41-44 known to Lk. seem unknown 
to Matt. 1 : 2 f . is the only instance of the gospel in which the 
evangelist quotes Scripture on his own account. Here 26 is 
not from " Isaiah " whom Mk. professes to quote ; but has been 
added from Matt. 11 : 10 = Lk. 7 : 27. Mk. 9 : 49, 506 ; 10 : 12, 
386, 396 are the only other passages we find reason to suspect. 

8 Cf. Acts 10 : 36-42 ; 13 : 23-31. 



Why defi- 
cient in 
"order"? 



traits. 



206 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

events of the gospel history for all our Synoptists 
within the too narrow limits of a single Jewish 
church year, 1 but of the sequences in detail, wherein 
the criticism is justified. 2 
Graphic For the first glance at our gospel should suffice to 

show that its author did not rely upon his ability to 
relate personal experiences of Peter with Jesus, 
hitherto unknown, or even to draw such a distinctive 
portrait as that of John. He does preserve traits of 
the eye-witness, but they appear in the form of a mul- 
titude of minute embellishments of a story already 
fixed. Sometimes these touches are mistaken infer- 
ences, 3 but in a host of cases are fresh, lifelike, 
inimitably historical. 4 Nowhere in the Gospels do 
we stand so near to the eye-witness of Jesus' healings 
as in the two stylistically connected incidents, pecul- 
iar to this gospel, Mk. 7 : 31-37 and 8 : 22-26. The 
sign language of Jesus to the deaf and dumb man 
interprets his thought as if he stood before us. 5 The 
blind man's description of his returning sight is 
inimitable. Yet just these are the incidents, just 
such are the graphic embellishments (cf . 5 : 3-10 and 
9:20-27 with parallels), which Matthew and Luke 
barely mention, or wholly omit. 

An explanation of these and similar phenomena 6 may 

1 So the fathers generally, e.g. Clem. Horn. 17:19, "Jesus 
abode a whole year." 

2 See p. 189. 

3 E.g. in 5 : 12, 30 ; cf. Matt. 8. 31 ; 9 : 22 ; in 1 : 24 (= 5 : 7) ; 
1 : 346; 7:11; cf. Matt. 8 : 29 ; also in 6 : 56 ; 8 : 20, etc. 

4 E.g. in 1 : 29-34 ; cf. Matt. 8 : 14-16, note also 2:4; 3:5, 
20 f. ; 4 : 38 ; 5 : 8-10 ; 6 : 31, 39 ; 11 : 3. 

5 "Looking up to heaven he sighed" betokens appeal to 
divine help hi prayer, cf. 9:29; 11:22-24. (Against Gould, 
Intern. Comm., 1896.) 

6 E.g. the characteristic form of double statement of Mk. 
which led Tubingen critics to the notion that the gospel had 



THE SYNOPTIC WBITEBS 207 

be found in the suggestion that Matthew and Luke are why 
guided in their omissions and changes, many of which j?F 1 * ted V 
will otherwise appear arbitrary or frivolous, by a Lk. 
knowledge that their authority, Mark, himself depends 
on authorities, some of which were in their own pos- 
session, so that they do not always choose to follow 
Mark's embellishments. 1 The evidence of the gospel 
itself is, in fact, conclusive that its origin is not from 
mere memory or oral tradition, but from careful put- 
ting together of written sources which the evangelist 
modestly undertook rather to adjust together and 
embellish with graphic touches from the Apostle's 
discourse, than to supersede by a narrative altogether 
his own. The proof of this statement rests mainly on 
three considerations : — 

(i) Besides the general tendency to duplication in Mk. a com- 
expression, a very considerable element of the gospel ^f^ten ° f 
repeats, section by section, the same story which, in sources. 
a more or less widely different version, had already 
been related. 2 This phenomenon at the same time 

borrowed by turns from Matt, and Lk. So 1 : 32 (cf. Matt. 
8 : 16 ; Lk. 4 : 40), 42 (cf. Matt. 8 : 3 ; Lk. 5 : 13), etc. 

1 The omission of descriptive healings like Mk. 7 : 31-37 ; 
8 : 22-26 ; 9 : 20-27 by Matt, and Lk. is less surprising than 
Mr. Badham imagines. The later evangelists have no liking for 
processes. They prefer to depict the omnipotence which " cast 
out the spirits with a word" (Mt. 8 : 16). 

2 Not mere individual incidents are told in duplicate, but a 
connected series. Thus Mk. 7 : 32-36, 37 ; 8 : 1-9, 10, 11 f., 
13-22a, especially if compared with the parallel Matt. 15 : 29- 
16 : 12 will be seen to be a briefer, simpler account of the series 
of incidents already related in Mk. 6 : 32-44, 45-52, 53-56 ; 
7 : 1-23 (3 : 20-35) ; 7 : 24a, though the identity is not apparent 
until we compare with the latter its parallels in Matt. 9 : 27- 
34 = Matt. 12 : 22-50 = Lk. 11 : 14-51 ; 12 : 1 ff. Instead of the 
present impossible tangle of itineraries we obtain thus the fol- 
lowing : Scene of the Feeding — Gennesareth — Capernaum — 
Bethsaida — Cesarea Philippi. [Here the account Mk. 8:27- 



208 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

explains the singular omission by Luke of Mk. 
6:45-8:26; for it is just this section which contains 
the principal duplications, and, as we shall see, Luke 
sometimes goes even too far in his endeavour to avoid 
this fault. 

(ii) It is now admitted among critics that the occa- 
sional coincident variations of Matthew and Luke 
from Mark cannot be accidental; and, as knowledge 
of our Matthew by Luke is incredible, the devia- 
tion must be by Mark from a source underlying all 
three. 1 Again, we have already cited many passages 
in which Mark has unmistakably developed and added 
to the simpler story presented in Matthew. 2 At least 
one older narrative source was therefore certainly 
used. 

(iii) Too many of the seeming dislocations, 3 mis- 
understandings,^ and misadjustments of material 5 

9 : 1, 11-13 (except 8 : 34 f., 38a) should be followed by 7 : 24- 
31.] Then Tyre — Sidon — Acco — border of Galilee and 
Samaria (Lk. 9 : 51 ff. ; 17 : 11) — Scythopolis — Capernaum. 
Mk. 9 : 2-10 again interrupts the connection of vss. 11-13, 
the sequel to 8 : 27-9 : 1. There is further duplication in 
8 : 31-33 (= 9 : 30 f. = 10 : 32-34), 9 : 33-37 (= 10 : 35-45), and 
10:13-16 (=9:36). 

1 As one instance out of many, note how the omission of the 
words "Who smote thee ? " in Mk. 14 : 65 has made unintelli- 
gible the "Prophesy." But cf. Matt. 26:67=Lk. 22:63. 
Note also Matt. 8:2, 3 = Lk. 5 : 12, 13 embellished in Mk. 
1 : 40-42. 

2 Observe as typical instances of the parenthetic style thus 
produced the series of belated imperfects in 5 : 8-10 (cf. Matt. 
8 : 29), and the seven (!) consecutive participles in 5 : 25-27. 

3 As 3 : 196-35 (on account of vss. 34 f.), 1 : 40-45 ; 3 : 1-6, etc. 

4 As 6 : 8 f., where the teaching of the missionary's right to 
depend on his hearers for all needful things is changed into a 
prescription of simplicity of dress. 

6 As the most flagrant instance take 11 : 22-24, which should 
follow 9 : 14-29 as in Matt. 17 : 20 ; cf. Lk. 17 : 6. The syn>' 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 209 

can be accounted for by comparison of Matthew 
or Luke to be in all cases mere illusions of the 
critic. 

There is one source which Mark, if he knew it, Why so 
passed over with a bare extract or two, viz., the Logia. of^e*™ 06 
But he has left indications in the gospel itself that Logia. 
his omission of discourse material was not from igno- 
rance, but intentional. For 4:33 implies a know- 
ledge of more of the parables, and 1 : 13 that the nature 
of the temptations was known. Moreover, in the 
exceptional cases where the course of his narrative 
requires the insertion of more or less discourse mate- 
rial we have often scarcely more than a reference, 
almost always secondary in character and often mis- 
placed. 1 Had Mark approached his task regardless 
of current usage, which certainly distinguished 
between an Apostle's report of the Lord's teachings 
and mere accounts of his life, unauthoritative, how- 
ever useful in supplementary explanation, we might 
feel surprise at this seeming neglect. But we can 
readily understand it if he regarded his own work as 

bolic judgment on Israel 11 : 12-14, for whom the fig-tree is 
merely a prophetic symbol chance has brought in the way, is 
taken as a judgment on the tree itself, and made to takt: effect 
by the appending of 11 : 20-25. Vss. 20 f. are editorial solder, 
22-24 from the connection of Matt. 17 : 20 (Lk. 17 : 6), vs. 25 
from that of Matt. 6 : 14. Matt."' here follows suit. Lk. omits. 
Less conspicuous misplacements are 8 : 34 f . ; 14 : 55-64, where 
Matt.'" follows, but Lk. corrects. C. 13 affords many instances. 
1 The substitution in 1 : 7 f. of the Baptist's answer (cf. Lk. 
3 : 16 ; Jn. 1 : 26) for his preaching, Matt. 3 : 7-10 = Lk. 3 : 7-9, 
transforms the whole conception in the later sense, and in turn 
affects Matt, (ziirev for direKplvaTo, Lk. ; aweKpidr), Jn.) ; 1 : 15 is 
affected by the preaching Lk. 4 : 21 (cf. 6 : 1-6) ; 1 : 24 by Matt. 
8 : 29, from which Mk. deduces a general theory 1 : 34 ; 3 : 11 f. 
Displaced Logia fragments in 2 : 28 ; 4 : 22, 246 ; 8 : 34 f ., 38a ; 
9:37,41-50; 10:11,15, 386, 396; 11:22-25; 12:386, 39; 
13 : 9-13, 21-23, 33-37 ; 14 : 25 (?). 



210 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

belonging to this supplementary class. Apparently 
he aimed to reedit for the benefit of readers familiar 
with the "teachings," several existing, unauthorita- 
tive accounts of the "doings," with such additions 
and enrichments as his special relations with Peter 
enabled him to give. 1 
Thetradi- Properly interpreted, the tradition as to Mark's 

describes gospel is corroborated in every point, including date, 
our Mk. location, and qualifications of the writer. Historical 
interest is pronounced, almost to the exclusion of 
doctrinal, though the writer shows his opinion on the 
question of the controversy at Antioch, 7 : 19&. His 
fidelity to the sacred teaching of Jesus in c. 13 is 
practically as pure as Matthew's. While the tes- 
timony of Irenseus makes it certain that some of the 
predicted events, if not actually transpiring, were 
already matter of history, the bare omission in vs. 
24 of the eiOim of Matt. 24 : 29 is the only change 
open to the suspicion of accommodation to the known 

1 "We can only wonder that he should have shown these 
anonymous narratives the respect he did, e.g. the retention of 
both versions of the Feeding of the Multitude shows remarkable 
regard for even minute differences of statement in the sources. 
Mk.'s embellishment and explanations vary in value. Thus 
1 : 6, 206, 33, 35 ff., 43, 45 ; 2 : 1, 4 ; 3 : 3-5a, 7-10, 196-21, 32 ; 
4 : 10-25, 38 ; 5 : 3-6, 8-10, 15 f., 18-21, 22-43 passim; 6 : 31, 
37, 40 ; 7 : 17-23, 32-36 ; 8 : 14-19, 22-26 ; 9 : 14-16, 20-29 
(mostly); 10:24, 32; 11:4, 11, 16; 12:13, 32-34 (41-44); 
13 : 3 ; 14 : 13-15, 51 f . ; 15 : 7, 16-19, 216 might well rest on 
testimony accessible to him alone. Often they are mere infer- 
ences from the text, as 1 : 136, 346 ; 2 : 7, 156, 166, 18a, 20 
3 : 11 f., 14-15a, 30 ; 4 : 33 f . ; 6 : 16, 12 f., 56 ; 7 : 26a, 30 
8 : 20 ; 10 : 49 f . ; 11 : 2a/3, 20 f. ; 14 : 30, 72a (dls) ; 15 : 44 f. 
or explanatory additions, as 7 : 2-4 ; 14 : 76 ; sometimes false 
inferences, as in 5 : 13, 30a ; in at least one instance a popular 
report of a highly fanciful kind, 6 : 16-29 ; cf. 15 : 38. Of a 
disposition to absolve his readers from the duty of critical 
scrutiny there is no trace whatever. 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 211 

event. 1 It indicates the lapse of a year or two at least 
after 70 a.d. The fact that c. 13 is the only instance 
in which our evangelist constructs an elaborate 
discourse, is also indicative of the beginnings of 
the murmur, "Where is the promise of his coming?" 
2 Pet. 3 : 4. What we must guard against is the hasty 
assumption that Mark's work represents in the main v 
original composition rather than compilation and 
redaction. 

The traditional connection of the double work, Lk.-Acts. 
Luke-Acts, with "the beloved physician" 2 dates tributedto 
back at least to the Muratorian Canon, and may even Luke, 
account for Marcion's preference for this gospel. Of 
Luke we know simply that he was a physician, a Gen- 
tile, 3 and a companion of Paul at Eome. The diary 
of a companion of Paul is used in Acts 16 : 10-18 ; 
20:5-17; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16, who can scarcely 
have been other than Luke, 4 and this is quite sufficient 

1 The theory of Colani, Weiffenbach, and others of the in- 
corporation in c. 13 of a small Jewish apocalypse is sufficiently 
refuted by E. Haupt (Eschatol. Aussagen Jesu, 1895). Eemove 
the material taken from Mt. 10 : 17-22 and Lk. 12 : 36-46, and 
notbing remains but the commonplaces of current Jewish ex- 
pectation of the last days, adapted to answer the question of 
vs. 4 ; cf . 2 Esdr. 9 : 1-8 ; 16 : 18 ; 6 : 24 f. ; 5 : 9 and the Enoch 
fragment Bam. 4 : 3. That Jesus accepted these expectations 
as in some sense justified is apparent from 1 Thess. 4: 15-17. 
Cf. e.g. Mk. 13 :27 with 3 : 29, Matt. 13 : 30 ; 40-42, 47-50 ; 
1 Thess. 4:17, etc. 

2 Col. 4 : 14 ; Philem. 24 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 11. 
8 Col. 4 : 11. 

* There has been just enough of effort on the part of Schleier- 
macher, De Wette, Bleek, and Beyschlag in favour of Timothy, 
of Schwanbeck and others in favour of Silas, of Horst and 
others in favour of Titus, as author of the " Travel document," 
or "We-narrative," to show how difficult it is to find a com- 
panion of Paul better fitted to the case than Luke, who is 
favoured by most critics as well as by tradition. 



212 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Relation of 
the Diary 
to the 
whole. 



to account for second-century tradition regarding the 
authorship of both parts of the work. But the first 
person of Lk. 1 : 1-4; Acts 1 : 1 is not necessarily the 
Diarist. A compiler who takes such pains to main- 
tain the intensely Hebraistic style of 1 : 5 ff . in all its 
contrast with the Preface, might well shrink from 
obliterating the most fascinating characteristic of the 
Diary, even if not himself its author. Theophilus 
and his other immediate readers would be in no danger 
of drawing false inferences. Doubtless we should 
presuppose the correctness of the identification made 
by the Fathers ; but neither Scripture nor experience 
of their other inferences guarantees it. If the gen- 
eral design of the work is not of a character attribut- 
able to the author of the Diary, or the material 
appears to have been adjusted to conceptions insup- 
posable in a companion of Paul, nothing requires us 
to regard Luke as the evangelist-historian. Careful 
study of style, vocabulary, phraseology, adaptation 
of material to purpose, proves the writer indeed an 
author rather than mere compiler, but gives us no 
name. 1 The Diary forms but a minor element of 
the substructure, of little influence and much over- 
laid. The overlying strata are those which give the 
work its present character, and these are not what we 
should expect from a Gentile and companion of Paul. 2 

1 For statistics exhibiting the pronounced "Lucan" style and 
vocabulary see Vincent, Word Studies, 1889 ; Thayer's Lexicon 
of N. T. Greek, 1896, Appendix ; Simcox, Writers of the N. T., 
1892; and Hawkins' Horce Synopticce, 1899. It is admitted 
that a general individuality pervades the whole work, con- 
clusively showing the author to have made the material wholly 
his own, while preserving much that was characteristic of the 
source. 

2 Even the prefatory sentence Acts 1 : 1 contains an unmis- 
takable Aramaism {rjp^aro, see Dalman, Worte Jesu, 1898, 
I, p. 21), while the Hebraisms derived from 0. T. usage, not likely 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 213 

Kemove the Diary and Mark, and the general char- 
acteristics appear tenfold more salient, and these seem 
to point rather to a believing Hellenistic Jew of the 
same type and period as the author of our Matthew, 
though a far more skilful and cultured writer. 

It is true that an intensely Jewish style and point Hebraistic 
of view characterise that special source already noted elements 
which we not only may, but must, distinguish from 
the work of the compiler (whom we may designate 
E) ; for the material not found elsewhere hangs together 
as an organic whole, pervaded by a uniform purpose 
and a uniform conception and phraseology, 1 and, to 

to be copied by a Gentile, are not confined to special sections 
like Lk. 1 : 5-3 : 38, but while mainly characterising the author, 
extend even to the Pauline speeches and the Diary {e.g. iirl 
iravrbs irpo<runrov ttjs 777s 17 : 26 and ko.1 eyivero 21:1, 5 ; 27 : 44 ; 
28 : 8, 17. See Dalinan, op. tit., pp. 23, 26, 33). Note also the 
dating by "the Fast," 27 : 9. 

1 There are references forward and back from Lk. to Acts, 
and vice versa (e.g. Lk. 24 : 47-49 to Acts cc. 1 ff., 4 : 27 to Lk. 
23 : 7-12), and various habits of expression, as in describing the 
effect of divine manifestations, usually in the form, " and great 
fear came upon all that heard, and they glorified God " (Lk. 
1 : 65 ; 2 : 9, 20 ; 5 : 26 ; 7 : 16 f. ; 8 : 25 ; 9 : 34 ; 13 : 17 ; 24 : 37 ; 
Acts 2 : 43 ; 5 : 11-13 ; 19 : 17, etc.). There is a typically Jew- 
ish interest in quoting prayers and psalms in full as in Chr., 
Dan., Ezra, Neh., and the later literature (Lk. 1 : 46-55, 67-79 ; 
2 : 14, 29-32 ; Acts 1 : 24-26 ; 4 : 24-30) ; the elaborate report of 
speeches, dialogues, and documents is a kindred feature (Lk. 

4 : 16 ff. ; Acts 2 : 15-40 ; 3 : 12-26 ; 4 : 8-12 ; 5 : 35-39 ; c. 7 ; 
10 : 34-43 ; 11 : 1-18 ; 13 : 16-41 ; 15 : 7-21, 23-29 ; 17 : 16-31 ; 
20:18-35; c. 22; 23:26-30; c. 24; c. 26; 27:21-26; 28: 
17-28). Christ as the Prophet like unto Moses (Lk. 7 : 16, 39 ; 
24:19-27; Acts 3:22; 7:20-37, etc.) and as the suffering 
"Servant" of Isaiah (Lk. 24:26, 45 f. ; Acts 3:13, 18 ; 4 : 
27 f. ; 8 : 29-35, etc.) are illustrations of pervasive ideas. For 
phraseology note e.g. the appellative "the Lord" (Lk. 7 : 13, 
19; 10:39-41; 12:42; 13:15; 17:6; 18:6; 19: 8, etc.; Acts 

5 : 9, 14 ; 9 : 11, 15, 29, 31, etc.), and cf. Lk. 1 : 70 with Acts 



214 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Charac- 
terise the 
compiler's 
work. 



end all doubt that E lias really incorporated some of 
the sources which he admittedly had at command (Lk. 
1 : 1), there are references to portions which he has 
omitted, 1 others to incidents whose form he has 
altered 2 or has developed in a different sense. 3 Now, 
if the working over showed any considerable Gentile 
interest, the explanation of conservatives like B. 
Weiss would be plausible, viz : The Jewish features 
belong to the sources employed by the Diarist, imper- 
fectly concealed or purposely left unchanged. But 
such is not the case. The overlying strata, as much 
as any, show the characteristic Jewish point of view. 
Traces of working over attributable to a Gentile hand, 
if any exist, 4 are extremely slight, superficial, and 



3 : 21, Lk. 15 : 17 with Acts 12 : 11, Lk. 7 : 30 with Acts 20 : 27, 
Acts 12 : 17 with 21 : 40, etc. Other important characteristics 
will appear later. 

1 Lk. 24 : 34 ; Acts 1 : 15, 21 ; 9 : 31 f. ; 19 : 16, etc. Among 
R's omissions should be included Jn. 7 : 53-8 : 11 which Blass 
(Philology of the Gospels, p. 157 f.) is quite right in saying 
must have stood "originally" after Lk. 21 : 36. It is of the 
very bone and flesh of Lk.'s unique material (cf. e.g. Lk. 
7 : 36-50) , but never had a rightful place in our canonical gospel. 
Vss. 37, 38, are framed expressly to take the place of this 
story which R declined (for obvious reasons) to incorporate. 
The editors of the late Western texts, which insert it after 
Lk. 21 : 38, took it doubtless from the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, where Eusebius found it, inserting it as nearly as they 
could in its "original" connection. A. Pott, in his Abendl. 
Text der Apg., 1900, received since these pages were in type, 
has proved that some Western readings are in fact, as here 
suggested, survivals from the precanonical sources. 

2 Acts 10 : 41-43 ; cf. Lk. 24 : 36-49 with Jn. 21 : 5, 9, 12 and 
the Kerygma Petri in Ign. ad Smyrn. 3. 

3 Acts 11 : 15-17 ; cf. 2 : 1-4, 15 ff. and 5-11. 

* So the chronological errors Lk. 2 : 2 (an insertion of R, 
against the sense of the original, cf. 1 : 5) and Acts 5 : 36 f . ; 
and the conception of the Sadducees as a religious sect, Acts 

4 : 1 (Kal ol ZaddovKaioi), 2b (= R), 23 : 6-8. In Lk. 2 : 22 read 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 215 

doubtful, while the compilation, as a whole, is 

adjusted to a conception which centres in Jerusalem 

and views Christianity essentially as the true and 

Scriptural Judaism. The Diary is itself overlaid, 

and the expansions are not only in the interest of the 

general scheme, but are of the same purport as the 

alterations made in material drawn from Mark and 

the Logia. 1 Moreover, even these occasionally show 

as characteristically Jewish a point of view as the 

most Jewish of the sources. 2 The Diary we know 

to be the earliest narrative element of the New Tes- Elements 

tament; but in Acts cc. 1-12, where the main stock the Diary. 

of the Lucan history appears unburdened of foreign 

aiirris. Dalman (op. tit., p. 32) gives linguistic evidence to show 
that the author was ignorant of Hebrew and Aramaic ; but 
none of these count against authorship by a Hellenistic Jew. 

1 Thus Lk. 4 : 16-30 substitutes for the opening scene of 
Jesus' ministry in Mk. one which though out of place (Lk. 4 : 23) 
is specially adapted to foreshadow the entire work in both its 
parts; Lk. 5:3-10, also misplaced (cf. 4:38), transforms the 
call of the Four Mk. 1 : 16-20 into a call of Peter, corresponding 
with Peter's part in Acts cc. 1-15 (cf. Lk. 9 : 28, 32 ; 12 : 41 ff. ; 
22 : 8, 31 f., 61 f. ; 24 : 12, 34). Similar treatment has befallen 
the Logia. In the Sermon on the Mount Lk. 6 : 20-49, the sec- 
tion contrasting the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees 
with the new Law is omitted, while an anecdote is appended 
in 7 : 1-10 to illustrate Gentile faith in contrast with Israel's 
obduracy. 

2 Vision is not a matter of exceptional temperament, as in the 
case of Paul (2 Cor. 12 : 1 ff.), but is the stereotyped mode of 
divine guidance. In Acts 9 : 12 we have even vision of vision. 
Like the frequent "angels" it is a literary device, entirely 
justifiable among Orientals. Peter's scruples against eating 
with the Gentiles are thus overcome Acts 11 : 3-10; whereas 
we know from Gal. 2 : 11 ff. that Paul's rebuke was the real 
agency. It pervades Lk. cc. 1-3, reappears in 9 : 28-36 ; 22 : 43, 
and c. 24, pervades Acts cc. 9, 10, 12 ; but also interprets to 
the reader the significance of events in the Diary and adjoining 
sections. Besides 16 : 9 note 18 : 9 f. ; 23 : 11, and 27 : 23. 



216 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

material, not only is it admitted by all schools of 
critics to be certainly composite in structure, but its 
very elements have varied from one another and from 
the facts to a degree unaccountable at an early date. 1 
The principal author, if a Gentile, had so absorbed 
the spirit of his Jewish sources that it completely 
dominates, not the style alone, but the purpose and 
jJwish! ly content; if a companion of Paul, personal interest in 
the missionary hero had disappeared behind reverence 
for the Apostolic function. Paul's career is dropped 
from the moment the Church has been planted at 
Kome, as Peter's is after the recognition of Gentile 

1 In c. 12 Peter's providential release from prison — probably 
through the sudden death of Herod in the summer of a.d. 44 
(cf. Jos. Ant. 19 : 8, 2) — is but slightly idealised, the angel of 
death of vs. 23 being really the same as the angel of deliverance 
of vss. 7 ff., and the tradition still retaining highly realistic 
features (vss. 10-15). Still it manifestly cannot be dated less 
than a score of years or so after the event. The replica in 5 : 
19-25 has not only lost all historical motive and connection, but 
stands in a connection overflowing with anachronisms (note the 
egregious anachronism of 5 : 36 f ., cf. Jos. Ant. 20 : 5, If.; also 
the officialism of the later Church in 6 : 1 ff. — " widows " ; the 
" evangelists " [21 : 8] conceived as deacons, etc.) and legendary 
accretions (5 : 1-11, 15, 16), even the phraseology reflecting the 
period of Eoman persecution (cf. 5 : 41 " rejoicing ... to suffer 
for the Name " with 1 Pet. 4 : 4-16, Herm. Vis. 3 : 1, 9 ; 3 : 2, 1 ; 
3 : 5, 2 ; Sim. 9 : 28, 2, 3, 5, 6). The redactor who imposes a 
strange sense upon the gift of tongues in 2 : 4-11, against the 
sense of the speech (2 : 15-18), the source (11 : 15), and the 
facts (1 Cor. c. 14), can scarcely have known the phenomenon 
as a living reality. "Tongues" had already "ceased." He 
views the Pentecostal gift from the standpoint of the Hel- 
lenistic litterateur, as a parallel to the giving of the Law, 
which tradition reported to have taken place at Pentecost, the 
voice from Sinai dividing into 70 languages (for the 70 nations 
of the world) "as sparks fly from the anvil." See Hausrath, 
Hist, of N. T. Times, II, ii, p. 117, Philo. De Decal., and below 
p. 227, note \ 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 217 

equality at Jerusalem. He is not even reckoned an 
Apostle, save in the broader sense, along with and 
after Barnabas, 1 but a subordinate. 2 Peter receives 
the special Pauline revelation, and becomes the true 
Apostle to the Gentiles. 3 Yet the writer is anything 
but unfriendly to Paul. He simply seems never to 
have taken into his mind the things which to Paul 
were vital. 4 Against such facts we have need of more 
than the retention of the first person in the Diary 
sections, and a tradition, probably based upon it, 5 to 
make Lucan authorship of the whole easy to accept. 6 

Of more real importance than the author's name are Author's 
his qualifications for his task, which he himself q. ualifi ca- 
defines, not as personal acquaintance with Paul, still 
less as supernatural inerrancy, but simply as acquaint- 
ance with many sources (ttoXKoX iirexeipyo-av), compre- 
hensive researches (ttcLo-lv iraprjKoXovOrjKW'i), and a 
purpose to write the story from remote beginnings 
(avw0ev), with greater accuracy (aKpiftws) and better 
chronological order (Ka6t£iji) than his predecessors. 

i Acts 1 : 21 f . ; 11 : 30, etc. 

2 9 : 26-30 ; 13 : 1-3 ; 15 : 22 f. 

» Acts 9 : 32-11 : 18 j 15:7, 14. 

* Cf. Acts 9 : 22-30 with Gal. cc. 1, 2, and Acts c. 15 with 
Gal. c. 2. Also the author's apparent lack of acquaintance 
with the Pauline epistles, which cannot be accounted for by an 
early date. 

5 The "Western reading "one of us" for "one of them" 
in Acts 11 : 28 can scarcely serve for more than to show what 
inferences were drawn in the second century as to Antioch's 
being the traditional home of Lk. 

6 We only mention here the further difficulties of the redac- 
tion of Acts, changing the character, not only of the glossolaly 
(2:1-11), but of the community of goods (2:44; 4:32; cf. 
5:4; 12 : 12), officers (6 : 1 ff.), and other institutions of the 
primitive Church, and in Acts 28 : 17-28 carrying the pragmatic 
theory of 13 : 46 to the point of ignoring the existence of a 
Gentile church in Eome. 



218 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



of 
Luke- Acts. 



Shown in its 
outline. 



By observing the use made of Mark, the Logia, and 
the Diary, and their adaptation to the predominant 
source, we may gain an insight into his purpose and 
some idea of the earlier work on whose lines he built. 

"We may understand the silence of Papias as to our 
author's work, by realising how different was its pur- 
pose from that of the simple, early records of the 
sayings and deeds of Jesus. His was a " History of 
Christianity in its Origin and Progress," designed to 
show that its rejection by Israel and consequent 
planting among the Gentiles were in accordance with 
the divine purpose as foretold in Scripture, and were 
divinely directed. His " former treatise " showed how 
the awaited Redemption had come to Israel and been 
rejected by all save a remnant — the poor, the lowly, 
the weak, publicans and sinners, Samaritans and 
women; his second showed how in further fulfilment 
of the Scriptures, and by the power of God exerted 
through its risen Head, the Church had grown up in 
Jerusalem, extended to the Gentile world, and become 
established from Antioch to Eome. Part I relates 
Messiah's Humiliation in his unwelcomed coming to 
Israel; Part II, his Triumph in the creation of a new 
People of God. There is no adequate reason to regard 
it as incomplete. 1 

The opening chapters of Luke, including 4 : 16-30, 
where Jesus cites the examples of Elijah and Elisha 
for " turning to the Gentiles, " form the prelude to the 
drama, 2 whose first climax is the crucifixion and 
resurrection, when Jesus opens the Scriptures and 
proves that "thus it was written of him." The theme 

1 Against the inference from irpwrov (Acts 1 : 1) of a missing 
third part. For irpuros instead of irpdrepos, see Matt. 21 : 28, 31. 

2 Cf. Lk. 2:32-35; Acts 7:51-8:4, 26 ff ; 9:15, 20-25, 
29 ff. ; cc. 10, 11; 13:1-4, 7 ff., 40 f., 45-48, etc., and see 
J. Weiss, Absicht u. Char. d. Apg. , 1898. 



material. 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 219 

thus led up to (Lk. 24 : 44-49) is restated and devel- 
oped in Acts (1:1-5, 8). Peter establishes the Gos- 
pel in the centre of the Jewish world and vindicates 
its universalisrn. Paul is driven by the obduracy of 
Israel to fulfil the counsel of God by planting the 
Church in Greece and Eome, " as the Holy Ghost had 
spoken by Isaiah the prophet," Acts 28: 23-28. 

But this theme was not the invention of B. A Peculiar 
kindred purpose characterises the materials which 
must have come down to him from the very earliest 
times. The material peculiar to the gospel runs as 
follows after the characteristic cc. 1-4: the Call 
of Peter to be a Fisher of Men; 1 the Widow of 
Nain; 2 the Baptist's Acceptance with the Lowly; 3 
the Sinful Woman forgiven ; 4 Ministering Women ; 5 
Samaritan Village ; 6 Parable of the Good Samaritan ; 7 
Mary and Martha; 8 Introduction to Discourse on the 
True Biches ; 9 Murdered Galileans ; 10 Crooked Woman 
healed; 11 Parables of the Chief Seats, the Feast of 
the Poor, Counting the Cost, the Lost Piece of Money, 
and Prodigal Son, Bight Use of Unrighteous Mam- 
mon, and the Bich Man and Lazarus ; 12 the Error of 

1 5 : 1-11 (vs. Mk. 1 : 16-20). Parts of vss. 1, 36, 4a, 10a are 
enrichments from the parallels in Mk. See note 4. 

2 7 : 11-17. 

3 7 : 29 f. Note the similar interest in Matt. c. 11. 
* 7 : 36-50. Verses 37, last clause, 38, last clause, and 4b, and 

the name "Simon" are embellishments drawn from Mk. 14: 
3-9, which K wrongly omits as another version of the same. 

5 8 : 1-3 ; cf . 24 : 22 ; Acts 1 : 14 f. 

6 9 : 51-56. ' 10 : 25-37. 

8 10 : 38-42. Is this chivalrous treatment of women in opposi- 
tion to teaching illustrated in the fragment from the Two Ways, 
where John cites a command to exclude women, based on 
alleged frivolity of Mary and Martha? See Hilg. N. T., extra 
can. rec. 4, 118. 

9 12 : 13-21. w 13 : 1-5. u 13 : 10-17. 12 Cc. 14-16. 



220 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

those who think they have Merit ; * the Samaritan 
Leper; 2 the Widow (God's "elect") avenged; 3 the 
Pharisee and Publican; 4 Zacchseus the Publican. 5 
Character of We should expect Luke to be able to draw, as he does, 
source? 0131 w ^ s P e °i a l copiousness from his unique source in the 
story of the Passion and Kesurrection, for it aimed 
to show that " so it behooved the Christ to suffer and to 
enter into his glory " 6 and wound up with the charge 
to the disciples to go forth to all the nations with this 
message. 7 But besides the usual contrast between the 
high and the lowly, as in Herod's Mockery, 23: 7-12, 
vs. the Penitent Thief, 39-43, the items added here 
often supplement Matthew and Mark with historical 
data, 8 especially with reference to Peter. 9 There are 
others which, not having been deemed worthy a place 
in the original Luke, have only crept in through the 
inferior Western text, attaching themselves at the 
point indicated by their position in the uncanonical 
gospels from which they were taken. 10 

i 17 : 7-10. 2 17 : 11-19. 3 18 : 1-8. * 18 : 9-14. 

5 19 : 1-10. The special peculiarities of style characteristic 
of Lk.'s unique material are far too numerous for mention. 
Some have been already noted (p. 213, note 1 ) ; others will 
strike every attentive reader in phraseology which certainly is 
not K's (cf. Lk. 13 : 16 with 19 : 9 and 3 : 8) and other minor 
marks, but it is chiefly the all-pervasive purpose in the selected 
material which proves a single directing mind. One need 
hardly cite the continuation in Acts of the peculiar interest in 
Samaritans (Acts 1 : 8 ; 8 : 5-25), John the Baptist (Acts 1 : 22 ; 
10 : 37 ; 13 : 24 f. ; 18 : 24-19 : 7), women (1 : 14 ; 9 : 36-43 ; 12 : 
12-15; 17:4), and the poor (2:45; 3 : 1 ff . ; 4 : 32 ff . ; 9:36; 
10:2, 4, etc.). 

6 24:26f., 46. 

7 24 : 44-49. Constant appeal to Deutero-Isaiah is a dis- 
tinctive feature of Lk.-Acts. 

8 22 : 27-31. 9 22 : 31 f., 35-38, 49-51, 61 ; 24 : 12. 

10 The so-called "Western" text is a form of the Lucan 
writings which, along with much mere scribal corruption, in- 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 221 

Of course, we must not assume that this funda- Relation to 
mental source of Luke-Acts is present only where the ^ucan 
material does not happen to coincide with Matthew material, 
and Mark. On the contrary, we have already noted 
a curious diversity in the discourse material common 
to Matthew and Luke, one-third of which only has 
verbal identity. The two-thirds which has but slight 
verbal resemblance may readily be credited to the 
Logia, both from the nature of its content (the Sermon 
on the Mount and many parables and teachings) and 
the checkered history of this early collection. 1 But 

troduces occasional enrichments like the Pericope Adulterce, 
Jn. 7 : 53-8: 11 (see above, p. 214), which appear to be actual 
survivals of the pre-canonical form of the sources. In this in- 
stance the narrative survived in the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews (Eus. Hist. 3 : 39, 16). Between this gospel and the 
Kerygma Petri, the principal fragment of which parallels Acts 
17 : 24-31 and 7 : 41 ff., some unexplained relation existed. 
The Kerygma (ap. Ign. ad Smyrn. 3) had also a version of Lk. 
24 : 36-49 containing the features referred to in Acts 10 : 40-42 
(cf. Jn. 21:13, 15 and Lk. 24:43 Vulg.). The "Western" 
addition to Matt. 20 : 20-28 occupies the true historical position 
of the parable. The canonical form, Lk. 14 : 7-11, is forced into 
an incredible setting (cf . 14 : 1, 7a) by the displacement of the 
original setting (cf. Lk. 22 : 24-27 with Mk. 10 : 35-45). Here 
the uncanonical form is certainly more "original," though 
never a part of Lk. Similarly Lk. 24 : 12, though part of the 
source (cf. 24:24), owes its preservation to other hands than 
the author of the gospel. The mass of these survivals gravi- 
tates toward Lk.-Acts as meteorites beset the earth's orbit 
where the parent body was absorbed. See also the additions 
to Lk. 6 : 4, and especially to cc. 22-24, and the work of Pott 
above referred to (p. 214, note v ). 

1 The very different phraseology would indicate that it came 
to Lk. in a different version from Mattes. The bold omissions 
(e.g. Matt. 5:17-42; 6:1-6, 16-18) suggest an early date 
when material was abundant and selection free. The Logia 
elements will have already formed part of a complete narrative 
when R incorporated Mk., but their adaptation to the " Lucan " 



Matt. 



222 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

the other one-third evinces a much more direct lit- 
erary dependence, and by its content and character is 
unlikely to have ever formed part of the Logia. It 
is confined to the portions relating to John the Bap- 
tist and the period before the public ministry of Jesus, 
and some of the discourses in the earlier part 1 of the 
so-called " great interpolation." 2 But here we invari- 
ably find dependence, as regards the source, 3 on the side of 
Matthew, while the nature of the content corresponds 
to the unique material of Luke, already described. 4 
We can only conclude that the presence of this element 
Kelation to in Matthew" is to be accounted for as a very sparing 
enrichment of the Logia by kindred material drawn 
from this self-same Lucan source. 5 In two instances 

scheme is unmistakable. Note e.g. the above-mentioned omis- 
sion from the Sermon on the Mount and the appended narrative, 
Lk. 7 : 1-10, illustrating Gentile faith (cf. Lk. 4 : 16-30). Matt. m 
takes it over in 8 : 5-13, but loses the special significance. 

19:51-13:35. 

2 Lk. 9:51-18:14. 

3 Certain minor adjustments, such as the inversion of order 
in Lk. 4 : 6-12, are readily distinguishable as alterations by the 
Lucan E. 

4 See, e.g., above, p. 221, note l , last clause. 

5 This element includes the following : Lk. 3 : 7-9 = Matt. 3 : 
7-10, the Baptist's Preaching ; 3:17 = Matt. 3 : 12, Extract 
from the Baptist's Answer (cf. Jn. 1 : 19-28) ; 4 : 3-12 = Matt. 
4: 3-10, the Temptation ; 7 : 18 f., 22-28, 31-35, the Baptist's 
Message and Jesus' Discourse; 10:12-15, 21-24 = Matt. 11: 
20-24, 25-27 ; 13 : 16 f., Denunciation of Galilean Cities and 
Doxology ; 9 : 57-60 = Matt. 8 : 18-22, Volunteer Disciples ; 10 : 
2 = Matt. 9 : 37 f ., Labourers for the Harvest ; 11 : 9-13 = Matt. 
7 : 7-11, Discourse on Prayer ; 11 : 17-26, 29-32, 34 f. = Matt. 
12 : 25-30, 38-45, 6 : 22 f., Denunciation of the Generation de- 
manding a Sign (12 : 6-9 = Matt. 10 : 29-33 ? Encouragement 
to the Disciples ?) ; 12 : 13-34, 39-46 = Matt. 6 : 25-34, 21 ; 24 
43-51, Great Discourse on Earthly and Heavenly Wealth ; 13 
20 f. = Matt. 13 : 33, Parable of the Leaven ; (11 : 49-51) 13 
34 f . = Matt. 23 : (34-36) 37-39, Denunciation of Jerusalem. 



in Luke. 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 223 

only does narrative material appear to have been taken 
over, except through the medium of Mark, viz. Matt. 
8 : 5-10 = Lk. 7 : 1-9, x and Matt. 8 : 18-22, — more com- 
plete in Lk. 9:57-62 (cf. Lk. 14:26-35). But the 
remarkable tendency of Matthew 1 " to reproduce Mark And to Mk. 
in a simplified form, with variations coincident with 
Luke, finds explanation in the influence of an earlier 
source which all our evangelists employ, but only Luke 
has utilised in its most fully developed form. 2 

A higher regard for Mark appears in our author's Use of Mk. 
utilisation of this entire gospel, in its own order, as 
the groundwork for his delineation of the year 3 of 
public ministry. His other material, after the open- 
ing scene of 4:1-30, is massed in two "interpola- 
tions," a smaller in 6:20-8:3, and a greater in 
9 : 50-18 : 14. Tor the rest, his departures from Mark 
consist only of occasional additions 4 and substitu- 

1 In one or other there has been considerable alteration. 
Still another version in Jn. 4 : 46-54. 

2 Lk. himself, though far more willing to borrow from this 
Urevangelium than Mk. or Matt.", shows less respect to it than 
to Mk., altering freely (cf. Lk. 24 : 36-49 with Acts 10 : 40-43) 
and omitting (Lk. 24 : 34). Hence the difficulty of establishing 
priority in triplicate material. But cf. the additions of Mk. to 
Lk. and Matt, in passages above cited (p. 206), and note that, 
while Lk. is not free from expansions, both Matt. 3 : 1-4 : 11 
and Mk. 1:1-13 must be abridgments of Lk. 3 : 1-4 : 13 (see 
note on p. 379 and cf. Matt. 3:6 = Mk. 1:5" confessing their 
sins," with Lk. 3:10-14). So the official trial of Jesus, Lk. 
22: 66-71, is absurdly confounded in Mk. 14 : 53-65 and Matt. 
26 : 57-68, with his detention and ill-treatment in the house of 
Caiaphas. The features of the Transfiguration Story, Mk. 9 : 
2-8, which in Lk. has independent traits and is of extraneous 
origin in Mk. (cf. p. 207), suggest priority in the Lucan source. 

3 A single year of public ministry seems to have been the 
conception of Mk. adopted both in Matt, and Lk. in spite of 
indications in the material of all three of a duration of at least 
two years. Jn. corrects the error. 

4 Additions are made in Lk. 5 : 39 ; 9 :^31-33a ; 19 : 1-28, 41- 



of Luke. 



224 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

tions, 1 accompanied by a constant minute change of 
phraseology, wherein the coincident variation of 
Matthew often shows Luke more faithful than Mark 
to the proto-gospel. The omissions can be accounted 
for, without exception, as intentional, usually to avoid 
duplication (real or fancied) of matters elsewhere 
given in a version derived from other sources. 2 
Composition We find, then, that the main stock of Luke is a 
kind of proto-gospel j for in some much earlier form 
part of its discourse material was added by Matthew" 
to his version of the Logia, and part of its narrative 
material incorporated by Mark; but the meagre use 
made of it is hardly compatible with apostolic stand- 
ing or authority. Moreover, when used as the 
groundwork of Luke it was at an advanced stage of 
development, some parts being far later than others 
in origin, 8 and the narrative was already supplied 



44 [21 : 1-4] ; 21 : 37 f. ; 22 : 15-18, 28-32 (34 ?), 35-38 (43 f.?), 
51, 61a ; 23 : 2, 4-19, 226-25, 27-31, 39-43. 

i For Mk. 9 : 11-13 we have Lk. 1 : 17 ; f or 6 : 17-29, Lk. 
3 : 19 f . ; for 6 : 1-6, Lk. 4 : 16-30 ; for 1 : 16-20 ; 3 : 9, Lk. 5 : 
1-11 ; for 13 : 14 ff., Lk. 21 : 20-28 ; for 10 : 35-45, Lk. 22 : 24- 
27 ; for 15 : 16-20a, Lk. 23 : 11, 36 f. 

2 Thus Mk. 3: 20-30 = Lk. 11 : 14 ff. ; Mk. 4 : 26-29 (sup- 
posedly) = Lk. 13 : 18 f. ; Mk. 6 : 45-8 : 26 (supposedly) = Lk. 
9 : 106-18a ; 11 : 14, 16, 29, 37 ff. ; 12 : 1 ; Mk. 11 : 12-14 (sup- 
posedly) = Lk. 13 : 6-9 ; Mk. 12 : 28-34 = Lk. 10 : 25-28 ; Mk. 
14 : 3-9 (supposedly) = Lk. 7 : 36-50 ; Mk. 3 : 20 f . ; 6:5; 7 : 
24-30 ; 8 : 22-26, 32 f. (cf. Jn. 6 : 70); 9 : 20-26 ; 15 : 34 f. were 
probably felt to be objectionable, and 7 : 1-23 ; 9 : 43-49 ; 10 : 
1-9 unsuited to the work. 

3 Thus Lk. 4 : 16-30 (in part) ; 13 : 1-17 ; 18 : 1-14 ; 19 : 1-10 
and the like must in substance be very early. Per contra, 
cc. 1, 2, besides being unknown to Matt. 1 ", must be subsequent 
to the Adoptionist heresy (see Beyschlag, N. T. Theology, 
vol. ii, p. 481 [Engl.]), and narratives such as 7:11-17; 23: 
40-43 and 24 : 36-43 can scarcely be regarded as untouched by 
legendary influence. It may be well to repeat, however, that 



THE SYNOPTIC WBITEBS 225 

with its sequel on the preaching of the Gospel to the 
nations. 1 

The phenomena of Acts are similar. All admit Composition 
that written sources must have been used to relate of ActSt 
the founding of the Church in Jerusalem, cc. 1-5, 2 
and the evangelisation of Samaria and the sea- 
coast, cc. 6-8. Most scholars will grant, further, 
that the sources for these two cannot have been the 
same, for cc. 6-8 presuppose a different account of 
the beginnings from that we have, and carry us 
quite beyond the section 9:32-11:18, wherein Peter 
carries the Gospel to the same regions, and reaches, 
by supernatural revelation, the result which, in cc. 
6-8 ; 11 : 19-30, happens as an unavoidable result of 
persecution. 8 Between the two comes the episode 
of Paul's conversion, written from the standpoint of 



even these late elements are not the work of R. This is proved 
by the contrasted style of 1 : 5 ff . after 1 : 1-4, and still more 
decisively by the discrepancies between substance and editorial 
retouchings (cf. 2 : 2 with 1 : 5, the reversal of the order of the 
Genealogy and completion of it up to Adam, and adjustment 
of the Resurrection tradition to a theoretical centre at Jeru- 
salem, etc.). 

i Lk. 24 : 47-49 ; cf. Acts 10 : 42. 

2 The duplication of 4 : 1-31 by 5 : 17-42 has been spoken of. 
We might say 4 : 32-5 : 42 = 2 : 43-4 : 31, but in 5 : 12 the occa- 
sion for the interference of the authorities, the healing of the 
lame man, has been omitted. Other duplications in cc. 1-5 are 
discovered by B. Weiss, Spitta, and others. 

3 C. 7 displays a decidedly Alexandrian conception of the 
0. T. revelation (cf . Barn. 4 : 6-8 and 14 : 1-4 ; Heb. 3 : 5-6 
and Kerygma Petri, ap. CI. Al. Strom. 6:5), and appears to 
have been adjusted to the story of Paul by insertions in 586, 
59 ; 8:1. The incident of Simon Magus, 8 : 9-24, aims to dis- 
parage the arch-heretic, whose subsequent injury to the Church 
is alluded to in 8 : 23. 

Q 



226 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

a Jerusalem Christian, 9: 1-31, 1 and followed by the 
Duplica- account of the Pauline Gentile mission, in cc. 13, 
tions. -j^ with its sequel, c. 15, which again settles the 

question not only of the admission but of the 
eating with Gentiles as well, which had previously 
been settled by divine revelation to Peter, 10 : 9-16 ; 
11 : 3-10. As we know from Gal. 2 : 11-21, neither 
account is strictly correct, though that of cc. 10, 
11 is much more highly idealised. With this are 
connected the incidents of 9 : 32-43 and c. 12, which 
had no direct bearing on the story, but were of in- 
terest for the career of Peter. 
The Without seeking to follow the various attempts to 

speeches. extricate the sources of this Petrine half of Acts, 2 it 
is enough to point out that the great speeches which, 
according to the custom of antiquity, are placed in the 
mouths of Peter and Paul, though admirably adapted 
to circumstance and speaker, are compositions which 
form part of the fundamental structure of the book. 8 

1 The Jewish character of 9 : 1-31 is very marked including 
the use of vision in vss. 10-16, which reminds us of c. 10 and 
the subordination of Paul to the Apostles at Jerusalem in con- 
tradiction of Gal. 1 : 11-24. In fact there need be no real break 
from 9 : 1 to 11 : 18 ; for the missing account of the church " in 
Galilee," implied in vs. 31, and the missionary tours of Peter 
implied in v. 32, may have preceded 9 : 1. 

2 For the documentary analysis of Acts, see B. Weiss, In- 
trod. § 50; Jacobsen, Quellen d. Apg., 1885; Sorof, Entste- 
hung d. Apg., 1890 ; Feine, Vorkan. Ueberl. d. Lukas, 1891 ; 
Spitta, Apg. Quellen, etc., 1891 ; Clemen, Chron. d. PI. Briefe, 
1893, and St. u. Kr., 1895, and Hilgenfeld, arts, in Z. f. W. 
Th.j 1895-96. 

3 Attempts are made to show alleged Petrine or Pauline 
features in the speeches. In reality the speech of Paul in 
13 : 16-41 is a replica of Peter's in c. 2 (cf. 13 : 26-37 with 2 : 
27-39; 3: 13-18), that of 14:15-17, expanded in 17:24-31, is 
the stock address to the heathen in Tatian (Orat. IV), Athe- 
nagoras {Leg. 13), Diognetus (Ep. 3), Aristides {Ap. 1 and 10), 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITEBS 227 

As the paralleled exploits of Peter and Paul form the Not from 
warp, so these the woof of Acts, yet they do not * he i atest 
represent the latest hand. In the speech 2 : 14 ff . the 
gift of tongues is conceived as it really was (see above, 
p. 216 and cf. 1 Cor. c. 14), and the ascension is an 
inference, as in Eph. 4:8 ff., from the Messianic gift 
and from Scripture (vss. 33-36). In the accompany- 
ing narrative, 1 : 9-11, the ascension, with the con- 
nected second advent, like the baptismal vision (Lk. 
3 : 22) is taken as concrete, tangible reality, while the 
gift of (fiery) tongues is transformed into a Christian 
parallel to the phenomenon described in Jewish legend 
as accompanying the giving of the Law from Sinai, at 
Pentecost. 1 In the sweeping generalisations as to 

and is found in conjunction with its complement, rebuke of 
the false worship of the Jew (cf. Acts 7 : 35-50) in the great 
fragment from the Kerygma Petri in Clem. Al. Strom. 6 : 5. 
Pauline phraseology is not more conspicuous than Petrine or 
Lucan, even in Acts 20:18-35 (cf. vs. 28 with 1 Pet. 5:2ff., 
and vs. 27 with Lk. 7:30; Acts 2:23; 4:28; 5:38), while 
the special features of Paulinism — justification by faith, life in 
the Spirit — are absent or misconceived (13:39). The doc- 
trine of the speeches of Peter is the author's interpretation of 
Scripture (cf. 2 : 23 ; 3 : 18, 21, etc., with Lk. 1 : 70 ; 24 : 26 f., 
etc.), and, like the sermon of Stephen and the dialogue of 
Philip and the Eunuch, serve the author's purpose of exhibit- 
ing the relation in which Christianity stands to the old dispen- 
sation. Neither the speeches of Stephen nor of Paul can be 
conceived as real defences before a tribunal, though account 
is taken in both very skilfully of the character of the speaker. 
Cf. the initial sermon of Jesus, Lk. 4 : 16-30, framed on the 
basis of Isa. 61 : 1, 2a, and Mk. 6 : 4, and constituting the 
theme for the entire work. 

1 See the Midrash on Ps. 68 : 11 above referred to (p. 216, 
note *) : " "When the Word went forth from Sinai it became 
seven voices, and from the seven voices was divided into 
seventy tongues. As sparks leap from the anvil, there came 
a great host of the proclaiming voices." Philo (De Decal.) 
already presupposes this legendary interpretation of the " voices 



228 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION 

miracles, and community of goods, E, is again much 
inferior to his sources (cf . 5 : 15 f . with 3 : 10 ; 4 : 16 — 
the miracle here exceptional, — and 4:32 with 5:4; 
12:12). 
The con- The latter half of Acts is mainly based on the 

souiSe^" 7 Diary, an( i here are found those minute and accurate 
coincidences with historical fact so often appealed to 
as proof of the accuracy of the entire work. 1 Some, 
indeed, are found, as we should expect, in adjoining 
sections (13 : 7 ; 17 : 6, 18), where the early narrative is 
overlaid, but the graphic realism of the portraiture 
from c. 16 on, in marked contrast with the idealism 
of cc. 1-12, makes it superfluous to prove that the 
story of Paul's great journeys comes mainly from 
an eye-witness. Here it is only the account of 
the origins of the church in Ephesus (18 : 24-19 : 20), 
which reminds us of cc. 1-12, 2 though in 28: 17-31 
the story of the Diary is adjusted to the author's 
stereotyped idea (cf. 13:38-49), and in 13:6-12 
and 16:25-40 the general parallelism between the 
careers of Peter and Paul becomes more than natu- 
rally close. The great speeches with which the 
plain story of the Diary is embellished in 17:22- 
31; 20:18-35; 27:21-26, with the three defences in 
cc. 22, 24, and 26, balancing those of Peter in cc. 2, 
3, and 4, are worthy of high commendation when 
taken, as the practice of the time and indications 



and the lightnings" of Ex. 20:15. The Jeioish source of 
the ideas in this secondary element of Acts c. 2 is important to 
observe. So the euphemism "his own place," Acts 1:25, 
becomes luminous in the light of the Midrash which interprets 
it in Num. 24: 25, as " Gehenna." C. 7 is notoriously full of 
midrashic traits. 

1 See James Smith's Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 1880*, 
and Eamsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 1895, passim. 

2 With 19 : 17 cf. 5 : 11-13 ; Lk. 1 : 65 ; 5 : 26 ; 7 : 16, etc. 



THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 229 

of the work suggest, as illustrations of what Paul 
might have said, in the judgment of a Syrian Chris- 
tian almost wholly ignorant of his epistles. They 
should no more be taken for the actual utterances, 
than the speech of Gamaliel, 4 : 35-39, the letter of 
Lycias, 23 : 26-30, or the private dialogue of Agrippa 
with Festus, 26 : 30-32. 

In opposition to ancient tradition, which made Date of 
Luke the latest of the Gospels, 1 some modern writers Act8, 
have inferred, from what they deemed the abrupt 
ending of Acts, a date earlier even than the Fathers 
assign to Matthew and Mark. In reality, the " former 
treatise" has been adjusted in the discourse on the 
overthrow of Jerusalem (cf . Lk. 21 : 20, 24 f . with Mk. 
13:14, 24 f.; Matt. 24:15, 29 f.), not only to the 
facts of the actual siege, but to a subsequent period 
of Jewish exile and of treading down of Jerusalem 
by the Gentiles. Acts must of course be still later. 
From the indications already referred to (p. 216 f.), 
we cannot reasonably date it earlier than late in the 
reign of Domitian (81-96 a.d.). 

1 The tradition cited by Clement of Alexandria that "the 
Gospels containing the genealogies are the earliest " may sup- 
port the priority of the Lucan source, but would be contrary to 
the voice of all antiquity if applied to our Lk. 

The Lives of Christ, by Th. Keim (Engl., 1876-83) and B. 
Weiss (Engl., 1883-89), have the most thorough discussion of 
the nature and origin of the gospel sources. See also Gilbert's 
Student's Life of Jesus 2 , 1900, Appendix. Blass's Philology of 
the Gospels touches interesting special points. His Commen- 
tary on Acts (Latin) is invaluable. J. Morison (1894) and 
H. B. Swete (1898) have special Commentaries on Mark. 
Godet (Engl., 1887) on Luke, and Hackett on Acts (latest ed., 
1882). Special discussions of Acts, principally in histories of 
the Apostolic Age, e.g. Weizsacker and McGiffert ut supra. 
Discussions of documentary analysis of Acts by Jiingst, Spitta, 
Peine, Hilgenfeld, et al., all untranslated. 



Place of 
origin of the 
Instru- 
mentum 
Johanneum. 



PART V 
THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 

CHAPTER X 

THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 

Almost a canon by itself is formed by the group of 
writings attributed anciently to the Apostle John, 
consisting of an Apocalypse or "Prophecy," a Gospel, 
and three Epistles. These are referred, both by tra- 
dition and by internal evidence, to Ephesus, one of 
the most important centres of church life at the begin- 
ning of the second century. This is not doubted in 
the case of the Revelation addressed to "the seven 
churches of (Proconsular) Asia," and dating from 
Patmos; nor can we imagine any other location for 
the three Epistles and the Gospel, whose mystical 
theologoumena so well agree with the whole atmos- 
phere of Phrygian Asia, the home of speculative 
theosophy, and which are first employed by writers 
connected with Ephesus. Besides, the type of heresy 
they antagonise is clearly the docetic Gnosticism of 
Cerinthus. It may therefore be set down as admitted 
fact that the Johannine writings, Tertullian's " Instru- 
mentum Johanneum," represent the special contribu- 
tion of this great centre of early Christianity to the 
Canon. 



THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 231 

It has indeed been denied, both in ancient and The Apostle 
modern times, that all five of these writings, one of ^^nol 
which so widely differs from the other four, in sub- Ephesus. 
ject, in purpose, in attitude toward doctrines and 
persons, in style, language, and vocabulary, could be 
from the same hand ; so that if the Gospel and Epistles 
were John's, the Apocalypse could not be. But the 
extreme scepticism which denies even the presence of 
the Apostle in Ephesus is purely modern. The tradi- 
tion of the survival of " the beloved disciple " in 
Ephesus "down to the times of Trajan" 1 is wide- 
spread, uncontradicted, circumstantial, and so ancient 
as to be presupposed, at least to the extent of the 
great age and peaceful end of the Apostle, even in 
Jn. 21:18-23. As against the very considerable 
mass of tradition relating to the last years of the 
Apostle at Ephesus, some of it entirely credible, and 
the explicit testimony of Irenseus and Polycrates as 
to the intercourse of Polycarp and other Ephesian 
worthies with the Apostle, of which they knew at 
first hand, the counter evidence is trivial. 2 The 
attempt of Eusebius, based on his doctrinal prejudices 
against Eevelation, to find a distinguished presbyter 
John in Ephesus on whom the book could be fathered 
has been widely taken up in modern times, but with 
a failure to appreciate the extreme improbability that 

1 Iren. Her. 2 : 22, 5, quoted by Eus. Hist. 3 : 23, 3. McGif- 
fert appends the note, "The fact of John's continuance at 
Ephesus until the time of Trajan is supported by other pas- 
sages, and there is no reason to doubt it." 

2 It is forcibly stated by Badham in Am. Journ. of Theol., 
Oct., 1899. But much more careful readers of Papias than the 
mediaeval catenists found no allusion to the death of John in 
Papias's comment on Mk. 10 : 39. Doubtless it was ambiguous, 
so that later readers took his statement that the prediction had 
been fulfilled as applying to both the sons of Zebedee in the 
same sense. 



232 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Dionysius, the pupil of Origen, from whom Eusebius 
takes the idea, would have been unable to make a 
better suggestion than "that there were many with 
the same name as the Apostle John, . . . for example, 
John, surnamed Mark, ... as they say that there 
are two monuments in Ephesus each bearing the name 
of John." If, however, there was but one John of 
Ephesus, it is a violent contradiction of all the testi- 
mony, much of it extremely ancient, to maintain that 
this was not the Apostle. 1 

Nature of The New Testament Canon now includes but a single 

lypse. C "" example of the once popular apocalypses or revela- 
tions. The denationalising of Israel in and after the 
exile involved a profound change in the nature of 
prophecy. The prophet, as spokesman of Yahweh in 
the government and destiny of the nation, disappeared 
with the disappearance of nationality. But the 
Messianic hope was too deeply rooted. With the 
widening of Israel's horizon it tended to become more 
and more a hope for all mankind, as religion, losing 
its national limitations, became the relation of the 
individual man to the Creator of all. Israel is still 
the central figure, but its foes are the foes of humanity, 
its redemption the redemption of the creation. Thus 
the horizon was indefinitely widened. Again, the 
increasing hopelessness of Israel's political situation 
made the aspirations and expectations of the prophets, 
which, however ideal, had been conceived as operated 
through intelligible means, more and more incredible 
without a deus ex machina. The only alternative 
to Sadducean worldliness lay in supernaturalism. 
Hence prophecy, as it lost its footing on the solid 

1 Against W. Bousset, §§ 15, 16 of the art. "Apocalypse" 
in Cheyne's Encyc. Bibl., 1899. 



THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 233 

earth, took refuge in the clouds. Moreover, scribism whypseu- 
had relegated the voice of divine authority to the past. donymous. 
What God had revealed to Moses, Elias, Ezra, Daniel, 
or still more to the dim and mysterious figure of 
Enoch, 1 might be received as divine, though the same 
speculations under the author's true name would have 
been disregarded. Hence the flood of pseudonymous 
apocalypses in Jewish circles from 165 b. c. to 200 a. d., 
whose strange and grotesque visions and symbolism 
are largely borrowed from Ezekiel and Daniel, but 
deal fundamentally with themes drawn from the 
ancient cosmological myths in which the Orient, from 
time immemorial, had expressed its conception of the 
world conflict of light and darkness, good and evil, 
and its hopes of their ultimate outcome. But Mes- 
sianism, whether of this type, or the more spiritual 
type of the "meek man," was left to "this people 
which knoweth not the law" by the scribes of the 
Pharisees, as much as it was practically antagonised 
by the Sadducees. Haggadah might do well enough 
for Galileans. Eor the nomist only halachah, i.e. 
casuistry, was authoritative. 

Christianity came as a reenforcement to all these Christian 
mysterious hopes and beliefs of the lowly. Jesus a P° cal yP se - 
himself had adopted the most exuberant language of 
Daniel, however spiritual the interpretation he might 
have given it, if we had his interpretation. His 
official self-designation is probably borrowed from 
apocalyptic terminology. 2 But Christianity owed to 

1 Probably the chief figure referred to in Acts 3 : 21 (cf. Lk. 
1 : 70) among the prophets who spake of the restoration of all 
things (d7roKard(7Ta<rts wavruv') " since the world began." Enoch 
is the chief pseudonym in the "prophetic" literature of this 
type. 

2 See the copious literature on the title "Son of Man," by 
Wellhausen, Lietzmann, Appel, and others, cited in Dalman, 



234 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

him also the consciousness that prophecy was not an 
exclusive prerogative of the dead past, and " prophets " 
soon made every Christian assemblage ring with their 
visions of the glorious Messianic triumphs of the 
immediate future. It is therefore only what we should 
expect when the primitive Christian "prophet," a 
John, or a Hermas, disdains the pseudonymity of his 
Jewish rivals; though of course he still employs the 
current imagery, phraseology, and cosmological con- 
ceptions, which indeed appear not only in Eevelation, 
but in the eschatology of Gospels and Pauline Epistles 
alike. We certainly have abundant evidence of this 
flotsam and jetsam of the past in all three, but 

Logical especially in the Apocalypse of John. We may 

analysis of analyse the book as follows : — 

Revelation. . ■' . „ _. .,•■-•.•* 

i. Introduction, cc. 1-3. a. Superscription, 1 : 1-3. 

b. Address and salutation to the churches of Pro- 
consular Asia, 4-8. 

c. The prophet's vision of his call, 9-20. 

d. The Spirit's special message to each of the seven 
churches, cc. 2, 3. 

ii. Vision of the Book of Destiny, cc. 4-11. a. The 
court of God described, c. 4. 

b. The Lamb appears to open the Seal of the Book 
amid heavenly acclamation, c. 5. 

c. First cycle of six plagues, leading up to the Day 
of Jehovah; suspended climax with the opening of 
the seventh Seal, cc. 6, 7. 

d. Second cycle. Six Trumpets lead up to the 
impending final consummation, cc. 8, 9 ; through the 
Angel of revelation the prophet is recommissioned, 
cc. 10, 11. 

Worte Jesu, I, p. 191 ff. In English N. Schmidt, " Was KtPJ -Q 
a Messianic title ? " in Journ. Bibl. Lit., 1896, and Hommel in 
Expos. Times, May, 1900. 



THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 235 

iii. Vision of the war against the Dragon, cc. 12-18. 
a. The theocracy and Messiah vs. the Dragon, c. 12. 

b. The Beasts which work for the Dragon on earth, 
c. 13. 

c. The Lamb and his host, c. 14. 

d. The Seven Bowls of the wrath of God, culminat- 
ing in the overthrow of Babylon-Rome, cc. 15-18. 

iv. Vision of the Heavenly Jerusalem, cc. 19-22. 
a. Coming of the Bridegroom and destruction of his 
enemies, cc. 19, 20. 

b. Appearance of his Bride, the City let down out 
of heaven from God, 21 : 1-22 : 5. 

v. Epilogue. Commendation of the prophecy to 
the churches, 22 : 6-21. 

Whatever the evidences of diverse origin 1 in various unity of the 
parts of this complex prophecy, in its present form it book - 
is a real unit, the interrelation of whose parts is not 
mechanical but organic, not superficial but internal. 
Thus the letters to the seven churches in the prelude 
(cc. 1-3) have a profound inner connection with the 
visions which follow. 2 The same applies to the 
introductory vision, with its description of the glo- 
rified Messiah 8 (1 : 10-18), who addresses the seven 



1 As in the allusion to previous prophecy, 10 : 11, and inter- 
pretation to his readers, 11 : 4-13, of the current apocalyptic 
datum of the "two witnesses" (i.e. Moses and Elias ; cf. Mk. 
9:11; 13 : 4, and the apocalypses cited by Bousset, Antichrist 
Legend, p. 203 ff.). See also below as to the earlier date of 
11: If.; 17:7-18. 

2 Cf. 2 : 76 with 22 : 2, 2:11 with 20 : 6, 14 ; 21 : 8, 2 : 17 
3 : 12 with 14 : 1 ; 19 : 12 ; 22 : 4, 2 : 26 f. with 12 : 5 ; 19 : 15 
20 : 4, 2 : 28 with 22 : 16, 3:5 with 19 : 8 ; 13 : 8 ; 17 : 8 
20 : 12 ; 21 : 27, 3 : 12 with 21 : 2, 10 ; 22 : 4, 3 : 18 with 7 : 13 
16 : 15 ; 19 : 8, 3 : 21 with 17 : 14 ; 20 : 4. 

8 Cf . 1 : 10 with 4:1; 10 : 8, 1 : 14 with 19 : 12, 1 : 15 with 



236 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Its explicit 
assertion of 
Johannine 
authorship. 



churches, and even more closely to the preface and 
salutation (1 : 1-3 ; 4-9), l which have not the slightest 
trace of "Johannine reserve," but present the person- 
ality of the writer, " I, John, your brother and par- 
taker in the tribulation and kingdom," in the strongest 
and boldest light, just as the conclusion (22 : 8-21) 
introduces in reverse order the same personalities in 
the same bold and authoritative style, "I, John, am 
he that heard and saw these things." Unless we 
accuse the author of deliberate falsification, this verse 
is decisive as to authorship, though not of course 
excluding such redaction of earlier prophecies of the 
author's own, and to a limited extent of others, as is 
characteristic of Old Testament prophets. But if 
there is pseudonymity we marvel that some great per- 
sonality, such as Moses, Elias, Enoch, or Daniel, was 
not assumed; most of all, if that of the beloved dis- 
ciple, why no claim is made to apostleship. No 
reasonable alternative remains to the supposition that 
the author's name was really John, a Jew, the rugged 
vehemence of whose thought and barbarous solecisms 
of whose language fail to conceal a conscious mastery 
of the sublime tenets of the Gospel, even as his 
familiarity with, and attitude toward, special con- 
ditions in each of the seven churches are inexplicable 
from the mere authority of the spirit of prophecy. 
Such a tone could not be assumed by every ordinary 
prophet who received a " revelation " even in the great 
church of Ephesus, and we have seen what formidable 
obstacles lie in the way of assuming a second John of 



14:2; 19:6, 1 : 16 with 19 : 15, 21, 1 : 17 with 22:13, 1:18 
with 4:9; 5 : 14 ; 20 : 1. 

i Cf. 1:1 with 4:1; 22 : 16, 1:2 with 6:9; 12 : 17, 1:3 
with 22 : 7, 10, 1:4 wLn 4:5; 5:6, 1:5 with 17 : 14 ; 19 : 16 ; 
7 : 14, 1:6 with 5 : 10 ; 20 : 6 ; 5 : 11, 1:7 with 14 : 14, 1:8 
with 21 : 6 ; 22 : 13 ; 4 : 8 ; 11 : 17 ; 16 : 5, 1:9 with 6 : 9. 



THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 237 

the needful greatness side by side with, the Apostle at 
Ephesus, yet unmentioned by contemporaries. 

It is objected that the Apostle would have called Why the 
himself such, instead of modestly classing himself }g n e ot pos 
with his "fellow-servants the prophets," l and that he adopted, 
speaks of " the Apostles " objectively. 2 But he speaks 
no less objectively of the "prophets," among whom he 
certainly classes himself; and Paul, as we saw, uses 
the same figure in the same objective way of the 
Twelve. 3 As to the Apostle's self -designation, it is 
really much more probable that John did not habitu- 
ally speak of himself as an "Apostle," the term being 
applied, ca. 100, not so much historically with refer- 
ence to the sending of the Twelve, as descriptively, 
to designate the class of peripatetic evangelists. 4 
Functionally, John had not been an " apostle " since 
the day when he took the mother of Jesus to his own 
home, and the name dTroWoAos having as yet no sacred 
associations (for of course it was not the term employed 
by Jesus) it is less surprising to find that it is alto- 
gether the exception when the Fathers who had 
relations with Ephesus speak of John as "the 
Apostle." The habitual term, as in Irenaeus and 
Polycrates, is "the disciple of the Lord." 5 Function- 
ally, John was " a witness and a teacher. " 6 It is 
doubtful if he would have spoken of himself in the 
present as an apostle, however much he might mag- 
nify his authority as a "prophet." 

i 22 : 9. 2 18 : 20 ; 21 : 14. 

3 Cf. Rev. 18 : 20 with Eph. 3 : 5, and Rev. 21 : 14 with 
Eph. 2 : 20. 

* Rom. 16 : 7 ; 1 Thess. 2:6; AiS. 11. 

6 Thus, the Muratorian fragment speaks of John as ex dis- 
cipulis, though immediately after Andrew is described as ex 
apostolis. 

6 Polycrates ap. Eus. Hist. 5 : 24, 3. 



238 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Dissimi- 
larity to Jn. 
and 1-3 Jn. 
in the light 
of external 
evidence. 



Composite 
origin of 
Rev. 



It should be needless to add that objections drawn 
from the extreme dissimilarity in style and tempera- 
ment of the anonymous Gospel and Epistles, after the 
fashion of Dionysius, invert the true state of the case. 
So far as we have any knowledge of the Son of 
Thunder from the New Testament outside of these, 1 
it is in harmony with the type of mind revealed in 
Revelation. To use a different portrait, drawn from 
the Gospel and Epistles not known to have been attrib- 
uted to John before 170 a.d., to disprove the authen- 
ticity of Revelation, is the inversion of logic. 

Such being the indications of the internal evidence, 
we cannot but regard it as presumptuous to ignore the 
fact that " external evidence for the later date (95 a.d.) 
and the Apostolic origin of the book is stronger than 
that of any other book in the New Testament." 2 We 
recall the positive, explicit, and uncontradicted state- 
ments of Justin (155 a.d.) and Irenseus (180 a.d.) 
that this work was written by John the Apostle, 
Ireneeus adding, " at the end of the reign of Domitian " 
(95 a.d.), and we have the testimony of Andreas of 
Cesarea that Papias himself not only used the book, 
but " bore testimony to its genuineness " (see p. 45), 
which can mean nothing else than that Papias, like 
Justin, also referred to it as the work of John the 
Apostle. To dismiss all this peremptorily as " false 
witness " sounds strangely supercilious in an other- 
wise singularly judicious Introduction. 8 

On the other hand, the concentration of criticism on 
the question of the composition of Revelation during 
the last fifteen years has been far from barren. We 



1 As in Mk. 9 : 38 ; 10 : 35 ff. ; Lk. 9 : 54 ; Gal. 2 : 9. 

2 Reynolds in Hastings's B. D. art. "John, Gospel of,' 
p. 707a. 

» Julicher, Einl. § 22 : 5. 



THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 239 

may sum up the results in the language of one of the 
foremost critics and commentators : — 

It seems to be settled that the Apocalypse can no longer be 
regarded as a literary unity. Against such a view criticism 
finds irresistible considerations. 1 This result holds good, not- 
withstanding Gunkel's warning against the overhasty efforts of 
criticism. That a variety of sources and older traditions have 
been worked over in the Apocalypse will not be denied even by 
the student who holds that it is no longer possible to reconstruct 
the sources." 2 

With the above conclusions, and the grounds on individ- 
which they are based, we find ourselves in complete ^una^ 
accord. But Bousset also has wisely counterbalanced author, 
the evidence for diversity with equally convincing 
proof of a relative unity, "that the Apocalyptist is 
himself an independent writer who has simply in- 
troduced various fragments into his corpus apoca- 

1 "Among these," continues our author, "is the incongru- 
ity between 7 : 1-8 and 7 : 9-17, as also that between 7 : 1-8 and 
6:12ff., the two explanations of the 144,000 in 7: Iff. and 
14: Iff., the interruption of the connection caused by 10:1- 
11 : 13, the peculiar new beginning made in 12 : 1, the singular 
character of c. 12, the doublet presented by cc. 13 and 17, the 
fact that in 14 : 14-20 a last judgment is depicted, whilst that 
involved in c. 13 does not arrive till 19 : 11 ft ; the observation 
that in c. 17 two representations of the beast and his associates 
are given alongside each other, and the isolated character of 
cc. 17 and 18 and 21 : 9-22 : 5. 

"Further, the chapters do not represent the same religious 
level. C. 7 : 1-8 (cf. 20 : 7-9), with its particularistic charac- 
ter, is out of harmony both with cc. 1-3, and with 7 : 9-17 ; in 
11 : 1 f. the preservation of the temple is expected, whilst in 
21 : 22 the new Jerusalem is to have aone." 

"Moreover, different parts of the book require different 
dates : c. 11 : 1-2 must have been written before 70 a.d., c. 17 
probably when Vespasian had already been emperor for some 
time, whilst the writing as a whole cannot, at the earliest, 
have been finished before the time of Domitian." 

2 W. Bousset in Enc. Bibl. § 32. 



• A.D. 



240 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

lypticum." This relative unity is shown (1) in the 
artificial structure of the whole {e.g. groups of sevens 
and artificial connections), and (2) in the uniform- 
ity of style and language which is unique in the 
New Testament, 1 "monotonously diffuse: article and 
preposition are almost always repeated when there 
are more substantives than one, as also is the govern- 
ing word before the governed. Whole clauses are 
gone back upon and repeated in the negative : Hebrew 
parallelism is not uncommon." 
Why Rev. It is not surprising that connoisseurs of style, like 

tioned U after Dionysius of Alexandria, should have declared it 
impossible that this writer should have been the same 
as he whose fluent Greek and Hellenistic conceptions 
are exhibited in the Johannine Epistles and Gospel, 
nor that those acquainted, like Eusebius, with the 
Montanistic and Chiliastic extravagances which 
appealed to its authority should have begun after 
the third century to question its apostolicity. But 

1 The defiance of the rules of Greek grammar in Rev. is no- 
torious. (1) Throughout the book are irregularities, wrong 
constructions {e.g. l:5f. ; 12:7), and confusions of case, es- 
pecially with following participles (1:4, 10; 2:18 [K], 20; 
3:12; 5 : 11 f. ; 6:1; 7:4, 9 ff . ; 8 : 9 ; 9 : 14 ; 10:8; 11:1; 
14 : 6, 12, 14 ; 16 : 12 ; 17 : 4, 8 ; 18 : 12 f. ; 19 : 6 ; 20 : 2 ; 21 : 27 
[K]); (2) Hebraisms abound in the construction, as well as in 
the choice and arrangement of words, occasionally the Hebrew 
words themselves being introduced, or presupposed (9 : 11 ; 
13 : 18 ; 16 : 16) ; (3) Sense constructions are specially frequent 
{e.g. 4 : 1, 7 f. ; 5 : 6, 12 f. ; 7 : 4 ; 9 : 3 ff., 13 ; 11 : 4, 15 ; 13 : 14 ; 
14:3; 17:3, 11, 16; 19:4, 14) with plural predicate after 
neuter plural subject (3:2; 4 : 5, 8, 9 ; 5 : 14, etc.), and confu- 
sion of gender (9:7; 14 : 19 ; 19 : 20 ; 21 : 14 ; 22 : 2) ; (4) A 
vast number of systematic peculiarities of idiom, vocabulary, 
and terminology forbid quite absolutely the identification of 
this writer with any other of the N. T., in spite of occasional 
terms (6 X670S, &\r)6ii>6s, etc.) designated Johannine, which may 
well have become current among Christians at Ephesus. 



THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 241 

what is there, unless it be the lofty Christology, 
which prevents modern critics, who do not admit the 
direct apostolic authorship of the Epistles and Gos- 
pel, from admitting the emphatic testimony of the 
second-century Fathers of the Ephesian School to the 
authenticity of Revelation? And is not this very 
apocalyptic Christology a much needed explanation of 
that conviction of the primeval Church which could 
lead even a tolerant Pharisee (of the school of Gama- 
liel?) like Paul, first to "persecute this Way unto 
death,'' 1 and afterward to set its Messiah "at the 
right hand of God" in his own theological and 
eschatological system? 

On the other hand, nothing is more certain than The pri- 
the error of the Tubingen critics in attempting to dition of " 
make of this solitary representative, in their system, authorship 
of the doctrine of the Twelve, an early and an anti- probable. 
Pauline book. Its heretical antagonists are of the 
same type as those antagonised by Paul in the same 
region, Jewish, theosophical, antinomian, but now 
clearly differentiated and named. 2 As Paul 3 rebukes 
those Corinthians who committed fornication and 
partook of €l8w\69vTa, "things offered to idols," with- 
out restraint, by the example of Israel at Baal-peor, 
led astray by the counsel of Balaam ; 4 as he antago- 
nises an ascetic theosophy in Asia Minor 6 and in 



i On the ground of Deut. 13 : 6-11, 12 ff. ? 

2 " The teaching of Balaam," 2 : 14 (cf. Num. 25 : 1 ff. ; 31 : 16 
and 1 Cor. 10 : 7-10 ; 2 Pt. 2 : 15 ; Jd. 11), may or may not he 
the same as " the teaching of the Nicolaitans, " 2 : 15 ; but the 
clear discrimination of heretical sects outside the Church is the 
mark of a late period (cf. 1 Jn. 2: 19). 

s 1 Cor. 10 : 6-8. 

* Num. 25 : 1 f. ; 31 : 8, 16 ; cf . Philo Vita Mos. 1 : 48-55, 
Jos. Ant. 4 : 6, 6-9. 

6 Eph. 4 : 14 ; Col. 2 : 8-23. 

E 



late date. 



242 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Corinth., Philippi, 1 Ephesus, 2 a libertinism mingled 
with "Jewish fables"; so John confronts the same 
heresies with the same figures. 3 For him, too, the 
Church is "the Israel of God," 4 the real Jews 6 the 
" circumcision " ; 6 their outwardly circumcised oppo- 
nents are " a synagogue of Satan, which say they are 
Jews and are not." Over against the " false apostles," 
and "false prophets" (2:2, 20), John also sees the 
new Jerusalem founded on "the Apostles and proph- 
ets," 7 though it is clear from the way in which he, as 
it were, closes the Canon of New Testament prophecy 
(22 : 18, 19), that to him also the time is near for 
prophecies to be "done away." 8 
Internal The development (with occasional degeneracy) of 

evidences of the Asiatic churches and differentiation of the heresies 
is only less decisive as an indication of late date than 
the stage which has been reached in the struggle 
with the imperial power. The Jerusalem of fleshly 
Judaism is still, as to Paul, 9 the seat of Antichrist, 
" spiritually Sodom and Egypt " (11 : 8) ; but what a 
transformation since Paul's day in the view of Eome! 
No longer the " restraining, " protecting power, a terror 
only to evil doers ; her mighty sword is now the chief 
instrument of Satan. Eome is Babylon the Great, 
the arch-enemy, and has been so for so long that there 
is no need to justify the identification. Nor is there 
doubt of what has wrought the change. Violent 
persecutions have broken out in four of the seven 
churches, the martyrs are a distinct class, 10 their souls 
are under the altar ; u the struggle is ever before the 

i Phi. 3 : 19. 2 2 Tim. cc. 2, 3, in part ; Eom. 16 : 18. 

a Eev. 2 : 6, 9, 14 f., 20-24. * Gal. 6 : 16. 

6 Cf. Eom. 2 : 28. 6 Col. 2:11; Phi. 3:3. ' 

7 Eph. 2 : 20. 8 1 Cor. 13 : 8. 
9 2 Thess. 2 : 4 ff. i° 20: 4ft; 7 :9ff. 

116: 9ff. 



THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 243 

author's mind. 1 But a still greater and mightier 
struggle than that in which Rome had become " drunk 
with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the 
martyrs of Jesus" (17:6), is in immediate prospect. 2 
This struggle w ; ll turn upon the worship of the 
beast, i.e. as scholars now admit, Caesar-worship. 
The great conflict between Christianity and the Eoman 
state religion is foreseen with a clearness, a detail, 
an., implication of so large a part of the struggle 
already past, as bring us unavoidably down to the 
later years of Domitian, as the early tradition so 
explicitly maintained. 

Nor is the fact that much of the apocalyptic mate- Notwith- 
rial of the book is from an earlier date opposed to standing 
such a view. On the contrary, the very inconsist- material, 
encies of its attempts to identify the beast (a con- 
stant of apocalypse generally) with first one, then 
another, of the emperors, till, in 17 : 9, 10, 11, the list 
is extended and reextended to admit the author's final 
view, identifying him with Nero redivivus,^ only 
proves the more certainly the readjustment cf the 
visions to meet the views we know to have been cur- 
rent in Asia Minor in just this period of the reign of 
Domitian. 4 Harnack does well to choose as the defi- 

113:1; 14:9ff.; 15 : 1 ff. ; 16:6; 17 : 6 ; 18 : 20-24. 

*6:9ff.; 3:10, and cf. 7 : 14. 

8 In 13 : 18 the number 666 = "iDp }Vti ; the ancient variant 
attested by Lrenseus 616 = "icp TO. 

4 "Since Eichhorn it has been recognised on all sides, and 
with justice, that the kings with whom the beast returns for the 
destruction of Eome are the Farthians, whose satraps might 
already be regarded as independent kings (Mommsen, Bom. 
Kaisergesch. 5:521). Thus our present chapter (17) also 
comes into a larger historical connection. As early as the year 
69 a.d., a pseudo-Nero had raised commotions in Asia Minor 
and Greece (Tac. Hist. 2:8f. ; Bio Casshis, 64:9; Zonaras, 
11 : 15) ; in the reign of Titus a second pseudo-Xero showed 



244 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



nitely determinable starting point for his "Chro- 
nology of Ancient Christian Literature" the years 
93-96 for the Apocalypse of John. 1 



The other 
Johannine 
books. 



The First 
Epistle. 



Logical 
analysis. 



In strongest contrast of style, doctrinal standpoint, 
character, and attitude, as regards the personality of 
the author, are the four remaining writings attributed 
to John, of which we have to consider first the Epis- 
tles, as apparently earlier in date than the Gospel in 
its present form. 

But for 1 : 12 ff . we might regard 1 John as a homily 
rather than a letter, and, as it is, the distinction 
drawn by Deissmann between letters (such as 2 John, 
3 John, Philemon) and epistles (a stereotyped literary 
form of the early Church, led up to by the writings 
of Paul) is fully applicable. But the gnomic style, 
which gives to 1 John the appearance of an unrelated 
series of meditations, is the characteristic mode of 
thought of this individual author, rather than a liter- 
ary form. An epistle it must be admitted to be, and 
not without plan or purpose, though the logical 
sequence is often obscure. We may take the follow- 
ing as exhibiting the general structure. 

i. Introduction. The historical manifestation of 

himself on the Euphrates (Zonaras, 11 : 18), and was acknow- 
ledged by the Parthian king, Artabanus (Mommsen, ibid.). 
About 88 a.d. a third pseudo-Nero again made his appearance, 
also among the Parthians, and threatened the Roman empire 
(Suet. Nero, 50, Tac. Hist. 1:2). In this form we find the 
same expectation also in the fourth Sibylline book, written 
shortly after 79 a.d. (Sibyll. 4 : 19 ff. 137 ff.), and in the oldest 
portion of the fifth book, written about 74 a.d. (5 : 143 ff. 
361 ff.) ; in the last passage it is associated with a denunciation 
of Babylon and a prophecy of the rebuilding of Jerusalem" 
(condensed by Bousset, op. cit., from Zahn " Apoc. Stud." in 
ZKWL, 1885, 1886). 
1 Chronologie, p. 245. 



THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 245 

God in Christ, the special treasure of the Church, an 
occasion for writing, 1 : 1-5. 

ii. Doctrinal. (a) Bearing of the faith against 
moral indifference, (b) against worldliness, and 
(c) against Gnostic self-sufficiency, 1:6-2:11} 
2:12-17; 2:18-29. 

iii. Ethical. Love as the foundation of Christian 
morality, c. 3. 

iv. Application. This leads (a) to the exclusion of 
the errorists; (&) to edification within the Church; 
(c) to assurance of salvation, 4 : 1-6, 7-21 ; 5 : 1-12. 

v. Conclusion. The Christian's blessed conscious- 
ness of forgiveness and fellowship with God, 5 : 13-21. 

We scarcely need 2 : 26 to tell us that " these things Design in 
were written concerning them that would lead you j^ostic.* 1 " 
astray." Without a direct polemic, the entire Epistle 
aims to build up the churches of Asia against a liber- 
tine 1 and docetic 2 Gnosticism, which is no longer 
within the Church, but has shown its true affinity 
with the sinful world (4 : 5) by its unloving separa- 
tion from the Church. 8 The particular sect of Gnos- 
tics known as " Cainites " 4 need not be specially in 
view on account of 3:12; but the allusions to the 
boasts of Gnostic illuminati, 5 the warning to dis- 
criminate against the pretended revelations of their 
prophets (4:1-6), and the persistent emphasis on 
the historic revelation of the Church, 6 and the ade- 
quacy of its illumination by the Spirit and conscious- 
ness of eternal life in redemption from sin, 7 makes 

12:4; 3:4-7. 2 2: 22;4:2. 32:18f. 

4 See, however, Friedlander, Vorchristliche Gnosticismus, 
1898, pp. 18-27. 

5 In 1 : 6, 8, 10 ; 2 : 3, 4, 6, 9 ; 4 : 5-8, 20. 

6 1:1-3; 2 : 13, 14, 24 ; 3 : 5, 8 ; 4 : 14 ; 5 : 6, 11, 20. 

* 1 : 35, 4 ; 2 : 12, 20, 21, 27 ; 3 : 2, 5, 14 ; 4:7, 12-18 ; 5 : 8- 
12, 13-15, 18, 19, 20. 



246 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

unmistakably clear, by contrast, the nature of the 
false teaching and the purpose of the author. 

2 Jn. and Scarcely any one will now deny that 2 John and 

3 John are from the same hand as 1 John. The 
inimitable style and phraseology * require the assump- 
tion either of identity of authorship, or of forgery so 
motiveless as to be absurd. The agreement of the 
last verse with the first of 2 John indicates that " the 
elect lady " is a church (cf . vs. 8), for which the warn- 
ing of 1 John against the docetic errorists is made 
more specific. Verses 7-11 state the occasion and give 
the warning. The regular epistolary form is observed. 

i. Salutation, 1-3. 

ii. Epistolary Thanksgiving, 4. 

iii. Doctrine and Application, 5 f., 7-11. 

iv. Conclusion, 12 f . 

Still more concrete, practical, and individual is 
3 John, addressed to Gaius, a member of the church, 
independently written to (in 2 John?), commending 
to him as host the bearers, who, as they are to pro- 
ceed on their journey, are perhaps intrusted with all 
three communications, (a) the general circular, 
1 John; (6) 2 John, the special epistle to the local 
church, whose bishop, Diotrephes, is hostile to the 
writer; (c) the personal letter, 3 John. It also is in 
strict letter form, 
suggestions Here the strange writer most nearly unveils him- 
of .author- se jf t jjis name nowhere appears, but he is an " elder " 
in high authority, hence, doubtless, in the metro- 
politan church at Ephesus, for his threat in verse 10 
implies authority. And yet, we wonder if Diotre- 
phes could so stand out if this were the Apostle John, 

i 2 Jn. 1 f. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12 ; 3 Jn. 3, 4, 8, 11, 12. 



ship. 



THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 247 

and whether, in that case, the threat would take the 
form of verse 10. * 

But 1 Jn. 1 : 1-4 implies, we are told, a personal Meaning of 
relation with the historic Jesus. Undeniably it is tive S "we" 
the effort of the author to counteract the pretentions 
of a docetic Gnosticism by emphasising to the utmost 
the historic tradition in possession of the Church. 
But it is just the characteristic of this Epistle, and 
still more markedly of the Gospel in the many passages 
wherein it pursues the same object, that it fails to say 
what Bevelation so repeatedly and emphatically says, 
"I, John, am he that heard and saw these things," 
and which it ought, if possible, to say to produce the 
desired impression. Where the effort is to substan- 
tiate by the most reliable testimony it either refers 
explicitly to the authority of another 2 or speaks 
simply in the name of a plurality, whose witness is 
given in common, and is twofold in its content: (a) 
historical, a faith once delivered to the saints, the 
treasured common possession of the Church; 8 (6) eter- 
nal and subjective, the manifestation of the Spirit. 4 
The bearers of this witness, whether historical or 
spiritual, are not only the writer as an official repre- 
sentative of the Church, but all who have received the 
witness of Jesus, and, conscious of eternal life, " have 
set to their seal that God is true " (i.e. to his promise 
of redemption). 8 The community of witnesses ante- 
dates even Jesus himself. The plurality includes 
John the Baptist, Moses, and the prophets, who 

1 On 2 Jn. and 3 Jn., see the monograph of Harnack, Ueber 
den dritten Johannesbrief (Texte u. Unters., xv, 3). 

2 Jn. 19 : 35. 

« 1 Jn. 1 : 1, 2 ; cf. 2 : 24 ; 3 : 5 ; 4 : 13 f. ; 5 : 91, 20. 
* 1 Jn. 2 : 201, 27 ; 5: 9-12 ; cf. 1 Cor. 2 : 6-16 ; Rom. 16: 
25-27 ; Eph. 1 . 9 f . 

6 Jn. 3 : 33-36, cf . 1 Jn. 4 : 14 ; 5 : 1-12. 



248 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Futile sup- 
positions as 
to the 
Apostle. 



"speak that they do know and bear witness of that 
they have seen." 1 Question-begging assumptions of 
an extreme diffidence on the part of the Son of Thun- 
der, or an inexplicable wish to conceal his identity in 
spite of the fact that one of the chief raisons d'etre 
of the Johannine Gospel and Epistles is the possession 
by the Ephesian church through John of a direct his- 
torical tradition opposable to Cerinthian docetism, 
are inadmissible in the face of Kev. 1 : 1, 4, 9; 22: 8 f., 
18 f . ; and even when the authenticity of Eevelation 
is denied are futile as explanations of the conspicuous 
absence from Gospel and Epistles of direct Johannine 
authority. We may follow Dionysius of Alexandria 
by connecting the name of John with the writings 
which make no claim to it, and are associated with it 
only by a tradition of the latter part of the second 
century, whose significance we have yet to examine, 
and refusing to connect it with a contemporary work 
of totally different character, which positively claims 
it; or we may attempt a refutation. We cannot 
ignore the facts he so distinctly sets forth. 2 So far 
as the three Epistles throw light upon the question, 
the indications are all in favour of a totally different 
author, 8 an "elder" in Ephesus of great, but not 
strictly apostolic authority, upon whom tradition later 
conferred the name of John, because of his manifest 
relation to the Gospel, which embodied the Johan- 
nine tradition and soon came to be known by that 



i Jn. 3 : 11 ; 4 : 38, cf. Un. 1 : 3 ; 4 : 6, etc. 

2 The whole extract should be read, Eus. Hist. 7 : 25. 

3 Contrast e.g. this writer's conception of Antichrist, 1 Jn. 
2 : 18, 19 ; 4 : 3 ; 2 Jn. 7 with that of Rev. c. 13, of almost 
contemporaneous date. The theory of identity of authorship 
cannot reasonably be held without an extreme theory of bor- 
rowing from other (Jewish) sources (Vischer, Harnack), such 
as the relative unity of Rev. excludes. 



THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 249 

name. 1 The date for Kevelation, to which both tradi- Light 
tion and internal evidence confine us, 90-95 a.d., con- ^Epistfes 
sidering the extreme old age the Apostle would then on the ques- 
have reached, perhaps precludes the most direct form jXannine 
of personal authorship; but the apostolic imprimatur authorship, 
is stamped upon the book (22 : 8) far more explicitly 
than upon 1 Peter; 2 and the Baruch who compiled 
these " prophecies " of the New Testament Jeremiah, 
if he cast them into a highly artificial mould, must 
have expressed not only the thought but the language 
of the seer himself, to enable the tremendous claims 
of his work to pass unchallenged in Ephesus from the 
very outset. 

The epistles entitled " of John " are clearly from 
the same region and period, perhaps a few years 
later. Their author superscribes himself simply " The 
Elder." That this "Elder's" name was assumed by 
scribes of the second century to be John was a simple 
consequence of their manifest relation to the fourth 
Gospel. If we find reason to think the connection of 
the name of John with the fourth Gospel has no more 
direct justification than that of Matthew with the 
first, there remains nothing to indicate that the 
unknown Elder's name was John rather than 
Alcibiades or Melchizedek. 8 

1 We should remember that Papias merely " employed" the 
Epistle (and Gospel ? ), but "quoted " the Apocalypse as of the 
Apostle. Justin Martyr boasts of the possession of the " Pro- 
phecy " by "John, an Apostle of the Lord," but if he uses the 
Gospel uses it only as Papias did the Epistle. Modern criticism 
finds similar employment of Gospel and Epistles in spite of still 
stronger motives for quoting them as of the Apostle, if known to 
be Johannine, in the Ignatian Epistles (117 a.d.); see E. von 
der Goltz, Ignatius von Antiochien (T. u. U. xii, 3, 1894). 
Citation begins with Theophilus of Antioch (180 a.d.). 

2 1 Pet. 1:1; 5:12. 

3 For a thorough discussion of present-day criticism of Rev. , 



250 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

see the article "Apoc. and Recent Criticism," by Barton, Am. 
Journ. of Theol., Oct., 1898, who rightly commends the analytical 
keenness of the discussion by Briggs in Messiah of the Apostles, 
1895. Bousset's Legend of Antichrist (Engl., 1896) and article 
"Apocalypse" in the Encycl. Bibl., 1899, are indispensable. 
The special theory of Vischer, espoused by Harnack, and most 
of the documentary analyses are accessible only in German and 
French (German : Volter, Spitta, et al. ; French : Schoen and 
Sabatier). Weizsacker {Ap. Age, transl. 1894-95) has specially 
sensible treatment of the problem. 

On the Johannine Epistles, see Gloag's Introduction, 1891, 
B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, 1892, S. Cox, Private 
Letters of St. Paul and St. John, and the article, "John, 
Epistles of," by S. D. F. Salmond in Hastings's B. D., 1899. 

For foreign literature generally, see bibliographies in the 
Commentaries and Introductions. 



CHAPTEE XI 

THE GOSPEL ACCOBDISTG TO JOHN 

The fourth Gospel is the effort of a gifted mind, Nature of 
schooled in Phrygo-Alexandrian mysticism, and andtradi- 
divinely exalted in the conscious apprehension of the tion of its 
mystery of the faith, to ground the higher Chris- ongm - 
tology of Paul * in an interpretation, based on partly 
independent sources, of the ministry and teaching of 
Jesus. It is the answer of the church in Ephesus to 
the exhortation and prayer of Paul (Eph. 1 : 15-19 ; 
3 : 14-19 ; Col. 1 : 9-18 ; 2 : 1-3. See p. 112) . 

Tradition, dating from about 180 a.d., making no 
discrimination of the three elements, — Hellenistic 
mysticism, Paulinism, Johannine reminiscence, — 
attributes the book, as a whole, to the Apostle John 
in Ephesus, at the age of ninety to one hundred years. 

1 Exhibited chiefly in Eph. -Col., hut developed in an Alexan- 
drian sense in Heb. The Paulinism of the fourth Gospel has 
been well brought out by Oscar Holtzmann in his Johannes- 
Evang., 1887. In particular, its dependence on Eph. is unmis- 
takable in such passages as Jn. 3 : 13 = Eph. 4:10; Jn. 3 : 20f., 
12 : 35 = Eph. 5 : 8, 11, 13 ; Jn. 10 : 16 ; 11 : 52 ; 17 : 20, 21, cf. 
Eph. 2 : 13-22 ; 3 : 6 ; Jn. 17 : 24, cf . Eph. 1 : 4, 6 ; 2:4. Note 
also the Logos doctrine in Eph. 1 : 10, the washing of regener- 
ation, Eph. 5 : 26 (cf. Jn. 3:5; 15:3); Col. 2:11; Tit. 3 : 5, 
the unio mystica in the body of Christ, Eph. 4 : 1-18, cf. Jn. 
15: Iff. In Eev. also the influence of Eph. and Col. is mani- 
fest ; see Intern. Coram, on Eph. and Col. by T. K. Abbott, 1897, 
p. xxviii, and cf . Eph. 2 : 20 with Eev. 21 : 14, Eph. 3 : 5 with 
Eev. 10 : 7, Eph. 6 : 11 with Eev. 18 : 4, Eph. 5 : 25 ff. with 
Eev. 19 : 7, etc. 

251 



252 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Criticism, once credulously sceptical in its estimate 
of the capacity of authors to invent, and of churches 
to adopt a pious fiction, sobered by larger knowledge, 
tends to-day to admit, as the historical element of the 
Gospel, trustworthy data and genuine logia, resting 
on the authority of the son of Zebedee, but is more 
convinced than ever of the need for discrimination, 
recognition that the data have been mingled with less 
trustworthy material and wholly recast, the logia 
expanded into dialectic discourses, and the work as a 
whole adapted to the author's purpose of theological 
exposition and interpretation, in a manner wholly 
incompatible with the clear, historical recollection of 
Present an eye-witness. 1 The problem of the fourth Gospel 

problem! 116 is sti11 the most unsettlecl > tlie mos t living, the most 
sensitive in all the field of Introduction; but not all 
the controversy has been in vain. The acknowledged 
leaders can touch hands across the chasm. Cham- 
pions of the Johannine authorship admit the extremely 
late date, the extreme subjectivity of the representa- 
tion, making the story an interpretation rather than 
a life ; the great liberty in utilisation of discourse for 
the exposition of the author's conception of the doc- 
trine, so that all speakers have the same style and 
ideas, and these the highly peculiar style and ideas 
of the Johannine Epistles; finally, the pervasive 
Hellenistic mysticism. Their opponents have been 
pushed back, in the matter of date, to within a decade 
or two of the traditional, have rejected the idea of 
pure allegorical fiction, admitted (generally) a basis 
of Johannine authority, and modified the demand for 
exclusive dependence on the Synoptic tradition as 



x An admirable review of both elements in the problem, 
received too late for more than mention here, is given in 
Wendt's Johannesevangelium, 1900, chapters 1 and 2. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 253 

invariably correct. We may surely venture to hope 
even here for something more than a perpetual dead- 
lock. 

The essential unity of the book is manifest from its Logical 
carefully studied form. The following structure is anal y sis - 
traceable : — 

i. The Galilean Ministry, cc. 1-6. a. Prologue. In 
his preexistence Christ is to be identified with the 
Logos, 1:1-18. 

b. Before the imprisonment of John. (1) Dis- 
ciples won at the baptism of John, the sign at Cana, 
appearance at Jerusalem, and first preaching in 
Judaea, 1 : 19-3 : 36. (2) In Samaria, 4 : 1-42. 

c. In Galilee. (1) Capernaum, 4:43-54. (2) Sab- 
batarian opposition in Jerusalem, c. 5. (3) The Crisis 
in Galilee, c. 6. 

ii. The Judaean Ministry, cc. 7-12. a. Jesus at the 
Feast of Tabernacles, c. 7. 

b. Breach with the men of Jerusalem, 8 : 12-10 : 21. 

c. From the Feast of Dedication to the close of the 
public ministry, 10 : 22-12 : 50. 

iii. The Passion and Resurrection, cc. 13-20. a. Fare- 
well discourses and prayer, cc. 13-17. 
6. Death and burial, cc. 18, 19. 
c. The resurrection, c. 20. 
iv. Appendix, c. 21. 1 



1 The unforeseen result of a threefold division under each of 
the above three heads recalls the numerical arrangement in 
this Gospel noted by H. Holtzmann, Einl., z p. 438. The Pro- 
logue begins with 3 propositions ; 3 days are spent with the 
Baptist ; 3 times Jesus is in Galilee ; 3 times journeys to Judaea ; 
3 Passovers and 3 other feasts fall within his ministry ; 3 
mighty works are related of the Judaean field, and 3 of the Gali- 
lean ; 3 divisions are expressly made of the discourse on the 
last day of Tabernacles ; 3 disclosures of the traitor are made 
by Jesus ; 3 times he is himself condemned ; 3 times Pilate at- 



254 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



General 



Gnostic- 
baptist 
tendencies 
counter- 
acted. 



The author's ultimate purpose is stated in general 
terms in the formal conclusion, 20 : 30 f . The seven 
" signs " given in ascending series from the wine at 
Cana to the raising of Lazarus, are a selection " mani- 
festing the glory " of Jesus ; but the higher type of 
faith the author principally aims to produce is that 
which apprehends and ratifies the word of Jesus as 
the key to all truth. Hence the expository dialectic, 
in which, first, sayings of the Baptist are cited and 
applied in support (a) of the Logos doctrine, 1 (6) of 
Jesus as the suffering and atoning Messiah; 2 second, 
sayings of Jesus, in support of the principal doctrines 
of the faith. The subjects are (a) [the Eesurrection 
(2:19 ff.)J; 8 (6) Kegeneration (3:1-21); (c) Life in 
the Spirit (4 : 1-42) ; (d) [the Authority of the Son of 
Man, 4 cc. 5, 7]; (e) Christ the Bread of Life, c. 6; 
(/) Christ the Light of the World and True Shepherd, 
cc. 8-10 ; (g) Christ the Resurrection and Life, c. 11 ; 
(h) Christ the Mystical Head of the Church, his Body, 
cc. 13-17. 

Although primarily for edification, the polemic 
side glances of the gospel are as unmistakable as 
those of the Epistles, corroborating the primitive tra- 
dition which declared its purpose to have been anti- 
Cerinthian. 5 Baldensperger, 6 recurring to the habit 
of the gospel wherever opportunity occurs of contrast- 
ing Jesus with the Baptist, noted a century ago by 
Michaelis, has thrown new light upon this feature 
of the author's design. Clearly he aims to correct 



tempts to save hini ; 3 words are spoken from the cross ; after 
3 days he rises and appears 3 times to the disciples. 

il: 6t 16. 2 1 : 19 ff., 26 f., 29-34, 36 ; 3 : 22-36. 

8 Perhaps a later addition. See below. 

4 C. 5 is probably displaced. See below. 

6 Cf. 19 : 34 f . with Un. 5 : 6. 

6 Prolog des vierten Evangeliums, 1898. 



THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO JOHN 255 

exaggerated views of the personality and work of the 
Baptist, 1 so that we cannot but be reminded of the 
curiously abnormal type of Christianity Paul had 
found at Ephesus, connecting itself with the Baptist, 
though professing some sort of belief in Christ, and 
not improbably mingling with it certain speculative 
elements of an Alexandrian type. 2 To suppose, how- 
ever, that these were disciples of John the Baptist, 
pure and simple, is, in our judgment, less probable 
than to recognise here one of the many Judaistic 
Gnostic sects 8 of the usual eclectic character, which, 
after the manner of parasitic growths, had fastened 
upon the movement of the Baptist, before endeavour- 
ing to absorb Christianity. The fact should not be 
forgotten that by unanimous representation of the 
Fathers, both Simon Magus, the father of Gnosticism, 
and Dositheus, his reputed predecessor and rival in 
Samaria, began as disciples of John the Baptist, pro- 
claiming a doctrine of successive reincarnations of the 
Logos, while Gnostic sects known as Hemerobaptists, 
Sabeeans, and disciples of St. John (i.e. the Baptist), 
perpetuated themselves for centuries in the East. 

Writing when he does, where he does, and as he Other 
does, we cannot accept as a complete statement of our features of 
author's purpose the general desire to confirm and author's 
build up the faith of believers 4 expressed in the esign ' 



1 1:8 (note context and emphasis), 15, 19-28 (especially 
vs. 20), 30, 33; 3:25-30, 31-36; 4: If., 5:33ff.; 10:41; 
13 : 10, etc. 

2 Acts 18 : 24 f. ; 19 : 1-7 ; cf. Col. 2 : 8-23. 

8 Friedlander, op. cit., pp. 28-40, employs Heb. (by Apollos ?) 
to show the relation of Christianity to the Gnostic sect known 
as Melchizedekians. Needless to say Proconsular Asia was the 
hotbed of their speculative eclectic theosophies. 

4 That the intended readers are Christians is apparent, not 
only from the subject-matter as a whole, but from the frequent 



256 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Resources 
of the 
Church. 
(1) The 
teaching of 
the Spirit. 



(2) The 
historic 
traditions. 



colophon 20 : 31. We recall the more specific declara- 
tion of 1 Jn. 2 : 26. The two great resources of the 
Church appealed to by that author, its historic tradi- 
tion and the inner light, are used again to edify 
believers, but again specifically to fortify their faith 
against the threatening conditions of their peculiar 
environment, to wit, the temptations of a vaunting 
speculative theosophy equally forgetful of the his- 
toric reality and of the moral earnestness of the faith. 
Against this error our author sets up the truth held 
by the Church, historic and moral. Its doctrine is a 
revelation profounder than any Gnostic system, and 
self-demonstrative to the conscience (1 Jn. 5 : 9-12). 
Primarily it is the teaching of Jesus, but not the 
mere logia in current use; there is a heart of the 
doctrine of Christ which appears only by aid of 
the supplementary teaching of the Spirit, 1 as when 
it is enriched by all the deeper speculative thought of 
Paul, whereby a few principles of Jesus are developed 
into a grander cosmology than Gnostics can boast, 
and given an eternal and universal application. We 
have, then, in this gospel the teaching of Jesus as it 
appears to a mind which looks back upon the Church's 
conflict of 50-100 a.d. against Hellenistic theosophy, 
and round about on its Gnostic rivals. No wonder 
the writer speaks with authority as the conscious 
possessor of a revelation which reaches the end of 
religion by attaining fellowship with God. 

But he has more than a subjective assurance. 
Special tradition enables him to treat even the Syn- 
optic story with bold independence, supplementing, 
explaining, correcting, with a confidence attributable 

assumption of their familiarity with gospel story, e.g. 3:24; 
11:2. 

i Jn. 14:26; 15: 26; 16 : 12 ff. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 257 

only to apostolic testimony. 1 Per contra a closer 
scrutiny of the freedom with which he handles both 
the teaching and the story, a freedom marked not so 
much by disdain as by simple unconsciousness of its 
inconsistency with historical perspective and environ- 
ment, forbids our accounting for his frequent superi- 
ority of knowledge by supposing him to have been 
personally an eye-witness. 

We turn first to the discourses. Few will deny that The 
in this gospel the prerogative of the ancient historian J? hanQin e 
to place in the mouth of his characters discourses 
reflecting his own idea of what were suitable to the 
occasion, has been used to the limit. 2 It is often 
impossible to say where the words of the speaker 8 
leave off and the reflections of the evangelist begin. 
Throughout, the style has its own marked individu- 
ality, but in vocabulary, in doctrine, in content, it is 
that of the author of the Johannine Epistles and differs 
widely from the whole type of Jesus' discourse, as 
otherwise known. 4 As an illustration take the Johan- 
nine "parable." It has a uniform type and subject: 
"I am the good Shepherd," "I am the bread of life," 
"I am the door," "I am the true vine," etc. Is this 
a historical representation of Jesus' characteristic 
mode of teaching? Apart from all questions of 
attestation we must decide in favour of the Synoptic 
representation and against that of John on internal 
grounds. The former bears the stamp of veracity in 

1 For example, see below, p. 265. 

a Thus in 18 : 33-38 he can report the private dialogue of 
Pilate with Jesus, as in 3 : 1 ff. that with Nicodemus, and in 
4 : 7-26 that with the woman of Samaria. 

8 E.g. 3 : 13 ff., Jesus ; 3 : 27 ff., the Baptist. 

* We note that Luke also gives new discourses of Jesus, and 
sometimes adapts them ; but in Luke the new material agrees 
with the old ; in John all is different, 
s 



258 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Incompati- 
ble with the 
historic con- 
ditions. 



Their rela- 
tion to the 
cycle of 
feasts. 



its admirable adaptation to the historical circum- 
stances and the wise purpose of Jesus. Beginning 
with a close adherence to the reformatory message of 
the Baptist, his preaching advances through an imper- 
sonal teaching as to the nature of the Kingdom, the 
character of the new righteousness, the breadth of the 
love of God. He sows the good seed as widely as pos- 
sible and in a form adapting it to lodgement and fruc- 
tification in the minds by which he is surrounded, 
before he precipitates the crisis by the announcement 
of his Messiahship. This comes only when the utmost 
has been done to forestall misunderstanding, and to 
lift his followers and the public to something like his 
own conception. 

The Johannine discourse is utterly wanting in any 
such adaptation to the known conditions. In form 
it is enigmatic and abstruse, often polemic} in subject, 
unsympathetic. From the outset Jesus announces, 
without reserve, his Messiahship, and the discussions 
which ensue, dealing with his ethical relation to the 
Father and to the spiritual life of the believer, are ill 
adapted indeed to the synagogues of Galilee or the 
streets of Jerusalem. Should we conceive a back- 
ground for this subtle dialectic it might be rather the 
school of Tyrannus in Ephesus, where some successor 
of Paul reasons on the higher Christology against 
some unfledged Cerinthus, before a Christian assembly. 

The great discourses of the fourth Gospel show, 
indeed, as we shall see, 1 a certain adaptation to the 
feasts on occasion of which they appear to be uttered. 
Thus, the discourse concerning Christ as the true 
manna, whereby the supreme miracle of Moses is out- 
done, is given on occasion of the Feast of Unleavened 



1 On the original order of John, which exhibits the relation 
of the great discourses to the cycle of feasts, see below, p. 273. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 259 

Bread. At the ensuing Pentecost, the Feast of the 
giving of the Law, the authority of Christ and his 
higher law is set over against the authority of Moses 
(c. 5). At the Feast of Tabernacles, with its rite of 
water pouring, we have discourses regarding the bath 
of regeneration and the invigorating water of life. 
At the Feast of Dedication, known as the Feast of 
Lights, from the illumination of the city in celebra- 
tion of it, Jesus presents himself as the Light of the 
world. And in the final great discourses at Passover 
the disciples are taught the doctrine of the true Israel 
of God, brought into an eternal fellowship with the 
Father through the Son, in the parable of the True 
Vine, and the related discourses (cc. 15 f., 14). But 
it is easy to see that this kind of relation between the 
feasts and the discourses is of literary, not historical 
origin. 

We are far from denying the presence of genuine Composed 
logia embedded in these discourses. In 2 : 19 we have °° the basis 
one indisputably such. 1 In other cases single clauses logia. 
may be identified with great probability as words of 
Jesus. In 15:18-16:2 we have a Johannine elabo- 
ration of discourse material found also in Matt. 
10 : 17-22. It would be indeed strange if an author 
of this period, employing the historical form, should 
not utilise such. But with all due allowance, it is 
impossible to regard the set discourses of John, as a 
whole, as other than literary compositions by the 
author of the Johannine Epistles. The lofty Chris- 
tology, the mysticism and spirituality of Paul are 
presupposed in their still deeper, subtler mysticism. 
The Pauline doctrine of the preexistence 2 and mission 



i Cf. Mk. 14 : 58 ; 15 : 29. 

2 1 : 1, 14 ; 3 : 13, 17, 31-34, etc. ; cf. 1 Cor. 8 : 6 ; 2 Cor. 8:9; 
Eph. 1:4; Col. 1 : 15, etc. 



260 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Historical 
material 
similarly- 
elaborated. 



of the Son, 1 atonement, 2 regeneration, 3 life in the 
spirit, 4 form a dominating element in the author's 
mind. Is he, then, presenting to us what he conceives 
the teaching of Jesus actually to have been, or is he 
purposely idealising? Probably neither. He is not 
consciously either historical or unhistorical. He 
simply frees his own mind on these essentials of 
Christian doctrine without considering the question 
of historicity. But we may well ask, Could the mind 
of an eye-witness and peculiarly devoted follower of 
Jesus be so emptied of the veritable utterances of the 
Master as to leave room for such idealisation? When 
we consider how others were perpetuating the histori- 
cal discourses an affirmative answer is not easy. 

Similar conclusions are still more obvious in our 
author's treatment of his historical material. Here 
we have the same extreme liberty, hand in hand with 
a limitation almost equally extreme. The story of 
the Synoptic Gospels is presupposed. There is 
dependence upon it, sometimes mistaken dependence. 5 
The outline of the career of Jesus is sketched in a 
manner not merely out of harmony with the triple 
tradition, but irreconcilable with the historical situa- 
tion, and with the narrative itself. The call of the 
Messiah, the foundation stone of the Synoptic story, 
which in Mark forms "the beginning of the Gospel," 
is not simply displaced, as in Matthew and Luke, by a 
miraculous Messiah-birth, but absolutely disappears 
from the scene. Paul's doctrine of a preexistent 



1 3 : 16 ; cf. Rom. 5 : 8 ; 2 Cor. 9 : 15, etc. 

2 3 : 14 ; 12 : 32 ; cf . Rom. 3 : 25. 

3 3: 3; cf. Rom. 6 : 4ff. ; Tit. 3:5. 
* 4 : 10-14 ; cf. Rom. 8 : 10 f. 

5 See below on the dependence of Jn. 11 : 2 ; 12 : 3 on Lk. 
7 : 38, itself dependent on Luke's special source combined with 
elements from Mk. 14 : 3. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 261 

choice on the part of the Son to come into the world 
and assume the role of Eedeemer, 1 having been adopted 
as a persistent consciousness in the mind of Jesus, 2 
there remains no room for the vision in his earthly 
life. Messiah's call is in the preexistent eternity. The call to 
Consequently, the story of the baptismal vision cannot l V Q . M< ? s " 
be connected with Jesus, but it is vouchsafed to the and func- 
Baptist. 3 The function of the Baptist himself is sub- g^tistmis- 
ordinated, still further than in the Synoptic Gospels, conceived. 
to his successor; it no longer has any independent 
significance whatever. The Baptist declares that he 
comes exclusively for the purpose of making known 
the Messiah to Israel. This done, his work is at an 
end and his disciples are referred to Jesus. 4 For 
these, in turn, there is no long process of preparation 
by which they are made ready to receive the startling 
announcement, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
living God " ; but from the very outset the Messiah- 
ship is announced to them, and in its fullest contents. 5 

12 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6-8. 

2 13:3; 16:28; 17:5. 

3 This extraordinary result, making the Baptist the recipient 
of the vision whereby Jesus perceived his divine calling, 
although the nature of the vision is foreign to the Baptist's 
conceptions, and the effect of it is felt by Jesus, may have been 
facilitated by the ambiguity of the pronoun in Semitic narrative 
(cf. Matt. 3: 16), as conjectured by B. Weiss {Life of Christ, 
Vol. I, p. 324, note), though with inversion of the facts. See 
my article, "Autobiography of Jesus," in the Am. Journ. of 
Theol, July, 1898, p. 544 ff. This, however, is only the final 
stage of the process begun by the Synoptists of reducing the 
function of the Baptist from independent importance to that of 
a witness to Jesus personally, and nothing more. Such a com- 
plete misconception is especially insupposable on the part of 
one who had himself followed the Baptist. 

* 1 : 31-34, 35-37 ; 3 : 26-30. 

5 The attempt to meet the difficulty of the unmistakable 
novelty of the announcement at Caesarea Philippi in the 



262 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



Unhistorical 
view of the 
atonement. 



Of the 
" signs" 
and other 
incidents. 



A similar blindness to historical conditions and 
perspective characterises our author's representation 
of Jesus' approach to the final catastrophe. The 
hours of witness-bearing are a mere interval to be 
passed over toward the great hour in which the Son 
of Man is glorified ; the atoning death is anticipated 
from the beginning. Even John the Baptist preaches 
the Pauline doctrine in an utterance which no reason- 
able exegesis can make consonant with his proclama- 
tion of the Coming One. 1 

The details of the narrative are equally unreal. 
The typical miracle of Jesus, exorcism, has absolutely 
disappeared, and the seven signs are, to a great 
extent, of a different type. 2 The failure of our 
author to comprehend the material he uses is in some 
cases clear. The transposition of the cleansing of the 
temple from its only possible position in the histori- 
cal nexus, at the point where Jesus is ready, by this 
symbolic .act, to throw down the gauntlet to the 
religious authorities and openly declare his reforma- 
tory purpose, to a place at the beginning of the min- 
istry, cannot be due to correct tradition. The very 
saying connected with it is inseparable from the 



Synoptic story, by urging that Jesus was now recognised as 
the Messiah "in a higher sense" than before, inverts the 
relation of Jn. 1 : 29-34, 86, 45, 48-51 to Matt. 17 : 16 and 
parallels. 

i Jn. 1 : 29, 36 ; cf. Lk. 3 : 7-9, 161, and 7 : 18 f., 23. 

2 Jesus himself places a moral limit on the right of appeal to 
God for intervention, Matt. 4:3-7; 26 : 53 f. ; Lk. 11 : 16, 29. 
The all-prevailing prayer of faith cannot be resorted to against 
reasonable evidence that the will of God is opposed, Mk. 14 : 41 f. 
The Synoptists often fail to appreciate the distinction (contrast 
Mk. 14 : 25-33 with 4 : 5-7), but our author leans even further 
toward thaumaturgy (contrast 2 : 1-1 1 with Matt. 4 : 3 f . , and 
11:4-6; cf. 9 : 3 f. with Lk. 11 : 29), though the discourses show 
a higher point of view, 5 : 30 ; 6 : 32. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 263 

closing scenes of Jesus' life ; * and this saying itself 
is interpreted in a literal and certainly incorrect 
sense. If Ave look at the scenes depicted in common Faulty de- 
by the fourth Gospel and the Synoptists, we find s y n p°°c° n 
dependence on the part of the former. The multitude story. 
no sooner appear in 6 : 5 than Jesus puts the question 
to his disciples, "Whence are we to buy bread, that 
these may eat ? " the author overleaping, in the 
familiarity of the story, the necessary Synoptic 
explanation that they are faint for lack of food, 
having been with him three days in the wilderness. 
Still more striking is the dependence upon Luke and 
Mark in 12: 1-8, 2 already referred to as proving mis- 
taken dependence. In 11:2 knowledge by the reader 
of the Marcan story is presupposed, but the essential 
significance of the anointing is lost in 12 : 1-8, in the 
effort to make the mode in which the honour is offered 
more humble. In Mk. 14:3-9 (= Matt. 26:6-13) 
the motive is consonant with the festal occasion; the 
woman (in John doubtless correctly identified as 
Mary) testifies her faith in Jesus' Messiahship by a 
semi-public anointing, 3 which Jesus, however, mourn- 
fully turns from a royal to a funereal sense, to the 
disgust of Judas (vs. 10). Luke, who discards the 
story, doubtless as a duplicate of his own 4 of the Ee- 
pentant Harlot who bathed Jesus' feet with her tears 
and wiped them with her hair, inappropriately grafts 
in the Marcan traits of the alabaster cruse of oint- 
ment, 6 and the name Simon, 6 to embellish his own 

wholly different narrative. But Jn. 12 : 1-8 follows Later exag- 
gerations, 
i Cf . Mk. 14 : 57 f . ; 15 : 29. 

2 Verse 8 is identical verbatim et literatim with Matt. 26 : 11, 
and would therefore show use of Matthew also, but the verse is 
omitted in Sin. Syr., and looks like a scribal loan. 

3 Cf. 1 Sam. 10 : 1 ; 16 : 13. * 7 : 36-50. 

5 37 bp, 38&/3, 46. 6 40, 43, 44. 



264 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

the conflate form, returning to the narrative of Mark, 
but adding, from Luke, traits which necessarily belong 
in the story of the Eepentant Harlot; for we cannot 
otherwise account for the statements that Mary 
anointed Jesus' feet ( !) and wiped them with her hair. 
The relation of our Gospel to (Matthew?), Mark, 
and Luke could hardly receive more convincing illus- 
tration. 

Or granted that thus far we have established but a 
probability, what candid mind can ignore the flagrant 
exaggerations of Jn. 18 : 1-6 in contrast to the mourn- 
ful simplicity of the Synoptic parallel? Is it not the 
very essence and pathos of the story of Gethsemane, 
the heroism of its victory of faith, that no such 
miraculous intervention came? A rabble of slaves 
gathered from the high priest's household and hastily 
equipped with sword, bludgeon, and torch, sufficed 
to overpower the Son of Man. His frightened fol- 
lowers did not obtain their dreamed-of opportunity of 
seeing a cohort (o-7ra/oa) of six hundred Eoman soldiers 
"go backward and fall to the ground" at the mere 
mention of his name. 1 
Points of Per contra we should greatly mistake the facts if 

superiority, we undervalued the features of historical tradition 
which underlie the story of John. The Synoptic 
tradition tends, as all know, to condense the career of 
Jesus within the limits of a single ecclesiastical year, 
culminating at the Passover. It foreshortens his 
ministry in Samaria, Persea, and Judaea to a dispro- 

1 The exaggeration is part of a systematic effort to show that 
Jesus was not, as commonly objected, ignorant of the true 
character of his betrayer, nor overtaken unawares by a fate he 
was too weak to resist. A succession of passages evince this 
design, Jn. 6 : 64, 70 f. ; 13 : 11, 18 f., 21-30 ; 2: 21, 23-25 ; 3 : 
14 ; 4 : 44 ; 7 : 30, 44 ; 8 : 206 ; 10 : 39. Cf. Wendt, Johannesev., 
p. 25 f. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 265 

portionate brevity as compared with the ministry in 
Galilee. The fourth Gospel reverses this. If the 
Galilean ministry is reduced to a bare paragraph or 
two, that of Samaria, Peraa, and, especially, Judaea, 
enlarges to inversely corresponding dimensions. The 
Synoptic chronology, likewise, is expanded in John, 
and this is in accordance with the facts ; for traces are 
discernible in the Synoptic story itself 1 of the arti- 
ficiality of the annual system. The fourth Gospel 
also follows a system connected with the Jewish 
feasts, but at least it boldly breaks the fast solidifying 
bond of a false tradition. 

Not only so, but even before the days of Clement Data of Jn. 
of Alexandria it had been remarked how it supple- | U Qop^ 1 c ent 
ments the triple tradition with invaluable historical tradition, 
data. In Mk. 1 : 14 and parallels the story of the 
Galilean ministry begins abruptly after the impris- 
onment of John. Of what has gone before we only 
know that in some more or less remote period of the 
past, Jesus, at the baptism of John, has received his 
Messianic call. Why the fishermen of Galilee forsake 
all to follow the enigmatical summons of an apparent 
stranger we cannot divine. It is the fourth Gospel 
which explains the mystery : Jesus is no stranger to 
these men. They have already served with him in 
cooperation with the reformatory movement of the 
Baptist. They have known what it is to catch men. 
Under his leadership a work like that of John himself 
had been begun, and withdrawal from it resulted only 
from his unwillingness to appear a competitor with 

1 Mk. 2 : 23 (6 : 39 ?) implies at least one more Passover 
season than the evangelist allows. Luke's Peraean ministry is 
quite too crowded, and demands an interval of several months 
after the return from Tyre and Sidon, and before the final visit 
to Capernaum, which may perhaps be dated in March, Matt. 
17 : 24-27. 



266 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

the great forerunner. 1 John's imprisonment is the 
connecting link between the two parts of the tra- 
dition. Completely as our author misunderstands 
the Baptist's work and character, the facts he has 
here to supply are incapable of invention, and testify 
to the value of his knowledge. 
Jn. corrects A more celebrated instance of discrepancy between 
dat S o7th tlC ^ e Synoptic and Johannine tradition is that connected 
crucifixion. x with the so-called quarto-deciman controversy. It 
cannot be through inadvertence that the fourth Gos- 
pel represents, in contradiction to the Synoptists, 
that the death of Jesus took place on the 14th Nisan, 
simultaneously with the slaughter of the Passover 
lamb. Its representations are not explicit, but the 
repeated suggestions of the true date are too clear to 
conceal the author's purpose of setting right the 
variant tradition. 2 Much has been made of this con- 
tradiction to prove the unhistorical character of this 
narrative. The facts of the case, when closely scru- 
tinised, would seem to lead rather to the opposite 
conclusion. The tendency was doubtless strong 
enough in the early Jewish Christian Church to iden- 
tify the last meal of Jesus with his disciples with 
the Passover, whose recurrence continually reminded 
them of the closing scenes of his life. Yet, if we 
look at the Synoptic story itself, as distinguished 
from the evangelists' conception, how little is there 
to justify such an identification. If this had been in 
truth the Passover meal, how strange that no allusion 
is made to its formal rites, so suggestive of compari- 
son with the fate Jesus was about to suffer. If the 
Passover lamb lay upon the table, why is it that there 
is no mention of anything but the bread and wine and 
dish of sauce, and Jesus, for comparison of his own 

1 Jn. 3 : 22-24. 2 13 : 1, 29 ; 18 : 28 ; 19 : 31. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 267 

slaughtered body, uses only the wafer of bread ? Why 
does he, if with desire he had desired to eat that Pass- 
over with them before he suffered, not eat of it, but 
point them only to its fulfilment in the Kingdom of 
God? l We can understand how the simple meal of 
the night before Passover should soon come in the 
Church to be identified with the Passover itself. We 
could not understand the reverse. And let us turn to 
the oldest and best of all witnesses. The Apostle In agree- 
Paul, writing to the Corinthians at the Passover pj'"" 1 
season, makes a twofold comparison: "Christ our 
Passover is sacrificed for us . . . and is become the 
first fruits [6.Trapxn\ of them that slept." If the date 
of Jesus' death was, as John relates, the Friday, 
fourteenth iSTisan, on which the lamb was slain, and 
"the third day," the Sunday of his resurrection, was 
sixteenth Nisan, the day of first fruits, when the 
a-Kapxn was offered in the temple, how beautifully 
appropriate the comparison. How strange that Paul 
should make it if in reality the ritual acts took place 
in each case on the day preceding the corresponding 
event in the life of Jesus. In spite of difficulties, we 
cannot but think the fourth Gospel and the tradition 
of Asia Minor as to the actual practice of the beloved 
disciple are the true representatives of historical 
reality. 

What, then, shall we say of the result, but that it 
is a mingled one? In both elements of the Johannine 
tradition, teaching, and story, we have the evidence 
of superior knowledge conjointly with errors insup- 
posable in an eye-witness. The conclusion we thus 
foreshadow grows only stronger as we take up the 
other phenomena of the book. 

It would be puerile to proceed at once to the as- The sources 

of superior 

iLk. 22:15 f. 



268 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

information sumption that because a more and a less trustworthy 
extricable 6 e l emen t are present in the discourses and narrative of 
the fourth Gospel we have nothing to do but to resort 
to the methods of documentary analysis to reach 
offhand the solution of the problem. Against all 
such rough and ready attempts to distinguish an ele- 
ment which we may deem worthy of the Apostle, and 
another which shall bear all the onus of the mistakes 
and misunderstandings, the famous comparison of 
Baur holds true ; the Gospel of John is like the seam- 
less coat of the Lord. But even the seamless coat 
also had a warp and woof and a tasselled fringe, and 
every historian, including our author, must use mate- 
rials oral and written, to which his own reflections 
will be appended. In fact, it can hardly be explained 
how Tatian and other authors of the second century 
can have given this material in what appears to be a 
more original form and order than in John, unless 
through acquaintance with some of the still surviving 
sources of the Gospel. 1 Among these were Luke as 
we have seen, and at least one other of our Synoptic 
The main Gospels. But the main source on which the compiler 
Gospel. of John, in its present form, has relied is unmistak- 

ably the work of the writer of the three Epistles. 
Both narrative and discourse material bear the pe- 
culiar mark of his inimitable genius. Disordered, 



1 Thus the story of the Pool of Bethesda, Jn. 5 : 1-9, in the 
best and most ancient texts, lacks the explanation of the angel 
troubling the water, vss. 36, 4. If the unanimous verdict of 
critics is correct, the author of our Gospel never wrote them. 
But they form an integral part of the story, being presupposed 
by vss. 3, 7, and agreeing in style. Doubtless the interpolating 
scribe took them from an extra-canonical source, but that same 
source must then represent what lay before the author when he 
cut out the objectionable feature. Cf. the reinstatement of Jn. 
7 : 53-8 : 11 in the Ferrariani after Lk. 21 : 38. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 269 

interpolated, disconnected from its original sequence, 
misinterpreted as much of it now is, the mass of our 
Gospel can be derived from no other hand. But this 
is as surely to be distinguished from the hand of the 
author of the Revelation on the one side as from the 
hand of the compiler and author of the appendix 
(c. 21) on the other. 1 There is scarcely a paragraph 
or sentence the author of the Revelation could have 
written, and whole chapters which are incompatible 
with his views. Strange indeed would it be, if two 
works emanating within the same decade from the 
same small circle should not afford a few specimens 
of similarity in phraseology and vocabulary ; 2 but the 
minds to which we owe these two productions stand 
almost at opposite poles of Christian thought. Not 
in its eschatology alone, but in almost every depart- 
ment the one shows the extreme of Semitic objectiv- 
ism, crudity, particularism of thought, the other a 
depth, refinement, and subtlety, a mastery of Hellen- 
istic mysticism worthy of a pupil of Philo. 

We are told, indeed, by the writer of the appendix Testimony 
that his compilation presents the testimony and writ- appendix 

1 Zahn (Eiril. §66, Vol. II, p. 483 ff.), "the prince of con- 
servative scholars," proves conclusively that chapter 21 is really 
an appendix by another hand, and no one will dispute such an 
origin for 21 : 24 f . But why limit the work of the final editor 
to chapter 21 ? Lightfoot {Biblical Essays, p. 194, Additional 
Note A, "On the Twenty-first Chapter") has shown that we 
must attribute 21 : 19 to the same hand as 12 : 33. The proper 
inference is not that the Apostle wrote the correction of current 
opinion in 21 : 23, which only his own death would naturally 
prompt, but that the final editor not only wrote an appendix, 
but retouched, if he did not recast, the gospel. See below. 
Wendt, op. cit., attempts to extricate the book of discourses, 
which he attributes to the Apostle John. 

2 Altogether too much is made of these inter alios by Reyn- 
olds in the article for Hastings' B. D., above referred to. 



270 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

Three hands ing of the beloved disciple, and, as we have seen, the 
able mSU1Sll ~ conscious authority and superior knowledge evinced 
would scarcely admit any other explanation, even if 
we had not in 19 : 35 the explicit and solemn assevera- 
tion that the statement is made on the authority of a 
still living eye-witness. But 19:35 can only have 
been written by the author of 20: 20 ("his side ") and 
1 Jn. 5:6; and Jn. 20:20 ff. is surely not from the 
hand which added the appendix. Hence, we have 
three to distinguish, (a) the witness (e/cetVos otSev, 
19 : 35), (b) the original reporter of the Apostle's tes- 
timony, (c) the compiler of our gospel and author 
of the appendix. Of these three, when the gospel 
appeared in the form known to us, the first was cer- 
tainly dead (21:23), and the second almost certainly; 
else why should his work be edited by another. Is 
it reasonable, then, to treat the general statement of 
the third, in which he lays claim to the highest pos- 
sible authority for the work he is issuing as "testified 
and written by the Apostle " (21 : 24), as if he intended, 
or were able, to distinguish between such elaborative 
reproduction of the Apostle's testimony as would be 
natural to the profound and cultured mind which has 
given us the Epistles, and ordinary dictation? No; 
his intention is simply to claim Apostolic authority 
for the gospel material left by the " Elder," and which 
he now edits, in the same way that later writers claim 
it for Mark and Luke, by asserting that they were 
written (i.e. dictated) by Peter and Paul. The editor 
and the church in whose name he speaks assert their 
knowledge that the gospel herewith given forth is 
"the Gospel according to John," as he had testified 
and as he had caused it to be written ; 1 the figure of 

1 If the author of Jn. 21 : 24 really intends to assert more 
than that the work of the "Elder" had the approval of the 
Apostle, it is at least as probable that the attributing to him of 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 271 

the great-minded "Elder" sinks into the insignificance 
of a mere amanuensis because the one essential point 
was to connect the work as closely as possible with 
the Apostle. 

As to the personality of these two, the Son of Personality 
Thunder and the nameless Elder of Ephesus, it is only ?* J "^ vs - 
needful to remind the reader that two portraits of the author of' 
Apostle are current in the Church, differing from one a nd nfain eS 
another as widely as the Apocalypse from the other source of 
"Johannine" writings. The one is based on the n ' 
Synoptic writings and Paul 1 and depicts a fiery, 
zealous partisan, 2 whose salient faults are a self- 
assertive ambition 3 and a narrow intolerance, 4 which 
even a score of years after had not disappeared suf- 
ficiently to permit the association of John with Paul, 
rather than with the conservative James, as an 
Apostle to the circumcision only. 5 The other repre- 
sents almost the opposite extreme of self-effacement, 
broad and spiritual-minded universalism. But it 
is based exclusively upon the Gospel and Epistles 
assumed to be, as reported, the work of John, and 
takes no account of the contemporary Book of 
Kevelation. 

As for our compiler and author of the appendix, Work of the 
the traces of his work are frequent throughout the and^uthor 
Gospel in misunderstandings and disarrangements of of the 
the material. Thus, the saying of Jesus in 17 : 12 is a PP endix - 
misapplied in 18 : 9, as 2 : 19 is misinterpreted in 2 : 21 ; 
and surely a cultured Hebrew would not have taken 
the familiar figure of the bath qol in 12 : 29 in the 
literal and concrete sense. Most striking of all the 
evidence, however, is the strange dislocation of 

direct participation in the authorship is a mistaken inference 
from 19 : 35, as that he had personal knowledge on the subject. 

i Gal. 2 : 1, 10. 2 Mk. 3 : 17. 3 Mk. 10 : 35 ff. 

* Mk. 9 : 38 ; Lk. 9 : 54. 6 Qal. 2 : 1-10. 



272 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

material, of which we have instances throughout. 
Discourses begun in one place to one audience are 
continued months after in a different situation to a 
different audience, or to no audience at all, as if no 
interruption had occurred. Peter begins his denials 
at the house of Annas around the fire of the servants 
there, and completes them before another fire at the 
house of Caiaphas at the conclusion of Jesus' second 
examination. The discourse of chapter 5 cannot 
originally have been intended to interrupt the sequence 
of the Galilean ministry, or to produce the extraordi- 
nary transition from the Temple in Jerusalem to "the 
other side of the Lake of Tiberias." The study of 
the Johannine chronology long ago revealed to J. P. 
Norris that its true position is after, not before 
chapter 6. 1 Not long after Bertling 2 and Wendt, 8 
ignorant of Norris's conclusions, proved that the con- 
tinuation of the discourse in chapter 5 appears in 
c. 7:15-24. 
Displace- In like manner, the farewell discourse reaches not 

original * ° on ^Y ^s final leave-taking, but the actual command, 
order. "Arise, let us go hence," in chapter 14. This should 

be followed by the prayer, chapter 17 (conceived as 
uttered standing), 4 but is now followed, wholly with- 
out connection, by the larger part of the discourse, 
cc. 15, 16. 6 

A list of displacements of similar character, resting 



1 Article "On the Chronology of St. John V and VI," in 
Journal of Philology, Vol. Ill, No. 5 (1871). 

2 "Eine Transposition," etc., in Stud. u. Krit. for 1880, 
p. 351 ff. 

8 Lehre Jesu, Vol. I, p. 228 ff. 

* Matt. 6:5; Mk. 11 : 25 ; Lk. 18 : 11, 13. 

6 See my article, "Displacement of John 14," in Journ. of 
Bibl. Lit., 1894, p. 64 ff. ; anticipated by Spitta, Zur Gesch. u. 
Litt. des Urchristenthums, 1893, I, 186 ff. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 



273 



partly on ancient testimony, partly on conjectures of 
modern critics, is appended in our note. 1 

Instances of this kind have led so conservative a ^ a Ticis_ 
critic as Blass to declare, when the discovery of the transmis- 
Sinaitic Syriac had corroborated Spitta's conjecture sl o ^' £ ut of 
regarding the displacement of Jn. 18 : 13-24, that sition. 
"inverted order is a special feature in the textual 
condition of John . . . sometimes on a larger scale," 
and to refer to Wendt's conjecture removing 7 : 15-24 
to the end of chapter 5, among others, as "highly 
probable." 4 But we have not here a textual phe- 
nomenon. Had this been due to "carelessness in 
copying and the leaving out of sentences which were 



1 An article entitled " Tatian's Kearrangement of the Fourth 
Gospel," giving the original order of the material as conjectured 
on the basis of Tatian, will soon appear in the Am. Journ. of 
Theol. Here will be found the bibliography of the subject, 
and the evidence for altering the order. The following order 
is reached as probably that of the original material : § i. The 
Ministry in Cooperation with the Baptist [1 : 1-18], 19-51; 
[2 : 1-11], 3 : 22-4 : 3 [44]. § ii. The Galilean Ministry [4 : 46a] 
2:12; 4:466-54; 6:1-71. §iii. The Period of Exile, and 
Samaritan Ministiy ; Jesus at the Feast of Pentecost, 4 : 4-42 
[43] ; 5 : 1-47 ; 7 : 15-24; [4 : 45]. § iv. The Visit to Jerusalem 
at the Feast of Tabernacles, 7 : 1-14, 25-30 ; 3:1-21; 7 : 31-36, 
45-52, 37-44. § v. The Visit at the Feast of Dedication, 
10:22-25, 7* 8a [56], 10-18, 26-39; 9:1-10: 5, 9*, 19- 
21; 8:12-59; 10:40-42. § vi. The Period of Retirement 
in Ephraim, 11 : 1-57 ; 12 : 20-36a, 1-19, 42-50, 366-41. § vii. 
The final Passover, 2 : 13* 14-22 [23-25*] ; 13 : 1-15 [16], 17- 
19 [20], 21-35 ; 15 : 1-16 : 33 [13 : 36-38] ; 14 : 1-31 ; 17 : 1-18 : 
13, 24, 14, 15, 19-23, 16-18, 256-40 ; 19 : 1-20 : 31 [21 : 1-25]. 
Here the only transpositions made on internal evidence alone 
are italicised. All others, save in 18 : 13-25, are made by 
Tatian, and with not more than one exception for some other 
than harmonistic reasons. The rearrangement of 18 : 13-25 is 
that of Sin. Syr. Square brackets enclose material supplied 
by R. ; asterisks indicate working over. 

2 Philology of the Gospels, 1898, p. 239. 



274 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



redaction. 



afterward supplied in the margin and from thence 
came again into the text, but at the wrong place," our 
copies would not all have been alike. The occasion 
goes further back than the diffusion of the book. 
The appen- Already we have seen reason to identify the author 
general* ° f & °^ ^is disarrangement of the material of our Gospel 
with the writer of the appendix (above, p. 269, note 1 ). 
We have now a single additional proof to advance. 
Is it probable that the writer of the narrative should 
have told us the story of Peter's base denial and then 
concluded his work without any reference to Peter's 
rehabilitation? Did he forget to relate the fulfilment 
of the promise 13: 366 ? If these, 21: 15-17, 18 f., 
were appended later, is it not likely that the story 
of the denial is also an insertion, occasioning as 
it does the displacements of material in the order 
of the discourse, — for the prediction of the denial 
in 13 : 36 introduces the displacement of chapter 14, 
and the story of the denial itself, as we have 
seen, is so awkwardly introduced in chapter 18 
that Blass declares the present order to be "the 
work of blundering • scribes. " x A closer scrutiny, in 
fact, of all the displacements will show a remark- 
able connection with parts which are common to this 
gospel and the Synoptic tradition. The problem is 
one far more subtle no doubt than it has yet been con- 
ceived to be, and will involve the searching not only 
of internal evidence, but of the most ancient patristic 
literature. 

Once more the question of authorship and date for 
these anonymous historical books turns out to be more 
complex than at first supposed. Tradition retains 
only that element of the truth with which it was 



In what 

Gospel is 
Johannine. 



1 As evidence that Jn. 13 : 36 f., and 21 : 19, 22 are from the 
same hand, note the peculiar pregnant sense given to anoXovdeiv. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 275 

directly concerned. The material Here employed has 
had no such simple history as it assumes in ingenu- 
ously attaching to the Gospel the name of the Apostle. 
Of ancient external evidence we have nothing what- 
ever pointing to the direct authorship of the book by 
the Apostle; for while the evidence for its existence 
in Asia Minor, near the beginning of the second cen- 
tury, grows stronger and stronger with each new dis- 
covery, each new fact of this kind adds equally to the 
strength of the argument from silence, that a gospel 
of such supreme importance should have excited so 
little attention, and been turned to so little account 
by men like Papias and Justin Martyr, who, when 
they quote from Eevelation, are careful to declare it 
the work of the Apostle John. It is not insupposable 
that even at the age of ninety or upward the fisher- 
man Apostle may have superintended the compilation 
of this book of his prophecies. But we must appeal 
to the supernatural to imagine him, at an even greater 
age, transforming the whole character of his theology 
and cast of his mind to become the author of the 
Epistles and Gospel. The very features of style and 
expression throughout the gospel, however inter- 
mingled with individual traits of Palestinean know- 
ledge, are those not of one born to the country, but of 
one trained in the refinements of Greek education, and 
who speaks of " the Jews " and " their law " as only a 
foreign-born Jew would do. But a reasonable inter- 
pretation of the tradition leaves us entirely free to 
exercise our imagination. Johannine authorship was 
not an expression, for that early day, to be taken in a 
strictly critical modern sense. That he that had seen 
had borne witness, and he who had been a disciple of 
the Apostle had written out the teaching, would be, 
to our informants, enough to justify the phrase. If 
such a disciple of the Apostle had been his spokesman 



276 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 

during the years which Jerome speaks of as burdened 
with the weight of mental and bodily weakness, and 
had left behind what he possessed of " testimonies " 
of the Apostle, perhaps embodied in compositions of 
his own, capable of being put in the form of a gospel, 
we cannot deem it strange or uncandid that his lit- 
erary executor (or executors) should give forth the 
product as the "testimony and writing" of the 
beloved disciple. At the same time the veiling of his 
personality, of which so much has been made, would 
have its simple explanation. 

Of the late date of the appearance of this gospel, 
the employment of our Gospel of Luke is already 
proof, if proof were needed. The last echo of the 
period when the life and teaching of Jesus were still 
capable of presentation in an independently conceived 
form, it constitutes the crowning gift of the churches 
of Asia to the generation which would depend no 
longer on "the living and abiding voice," but on 
written records of the life and teaching of Jesus. Its 
parting blessing is to "those who have not seen and 
yet have believed " (20 : 29). Not only as the last and 
greatest of the five books of the Johannine Canon does 
it fitly illustrate the depth and power of Christian 
thought in Ephesus, its first great theological centre, 
but it closes the first century with what Christendom 
has come to recognise as the ripest thought of the 
apostolic age, in many respects the noblest of all the 
interpretations of the life and teaching of Jesus. 1 

1 On the external evidence for the early date of John, see 
Abbott, Peabody, and Lightfoot, in The Fourth Gospel, 1891. 
On the general problem see, besides works already mentioned, 
Watkins, Bampton Lectures, 1890 ; Luthardt, St. John the 
Author of the Fourth Gospel, 1875 ; Evans, St. John the 
Author of the Fourth Gospel, 1888 ; Sanday, Authorship and 
Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1872, with articles 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 277 

We have reached the end of our inquiry. Our Summary of 
review of criticism and tradition respectively, and Q^he 
our independent investigation have all served only to named 
accentuate the tendency already remarked as character- books - 
ising the New Testament criticism of our day. Back 
to second-century tradition; for its testimony will 
repay another sifting. Back to the New Testament 
writings themselves and their testimony, direct and 
indirect, as to their own origin and nature. These 
are principles which commend themselves as much 
now in retrospect as in prospect. Of the twenty- 
seven books of our New Testament Canon sixteen 
make direct statements, in their own substance, as to 
their authorship and origin. Of these there is but one 
whose testimony we are compelled to reject — 2 Peter. 
Of the thirteen Epistles of Paul, only the three Pas- 
toral Epistles appear to give good cause for dispute, 
with the tendency on the increase to account for their 
peculiarities by the recasting and interpolation they 
have undergone to adapt them to public use, rather 
than by denial of their claim to be truly, although by 
no means wholly or unqualifiedly, Pauline. 1 Peter, 
with all its signs of late date, may be better conceived 
as written by Silvanus, with the imprimatur of the 
fisherman Apostle, than as even in part a falsification. 
Yet the possibilities of mutilation at beginning and 
end are so wide, and the limitations of our knowledge 
as to " elders " (5 : 1) who might have written it so 
narrow, that a positive opinion would be indiscreet. 
Finally, among the books which themselves contain 

by the same in Expositor Series, IV, Vols. 4, 5, and in The 
Pilot, April, 1900 — also Matt. Arnold in God and the Bible, 
Chaps. 5, 6 ; articles by E. Schurer in Contemporary Review, 
1891 ; 0. Cone, in New World, 1893 ; J. Drummond, in Am. 
Jonrn. of Theol., 1897; C. G. Montefiore, in Jewish Quarterly 
Review, Vol. 7 ; E. D. Burton, in Bib. World, 1899. 



278 



NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



(2) The 

anonymous 

books. 



Relative 
rights of 
tradition 
and criti- 
cism. 



claims to authorship by some individual, those of the 
Revelation of John have yet to be invalidated or 
explained away. 

The remaining eleven writings, the five historical 
books, the two letters of ."the Elder," and the longer 
Epistle by the same writer, were doubtless anony- 
mous either from the beginning or soon after. When 
the Canon-makers began their work James and Jude 
were provided with a superscription; Hebrews was 
left to be fathered by tradition upon whom it could. 
The mere titles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1 John, 
2 John, 3 John, as we have seen, represent no ele- 
ment of the text itself, but merely the belief of scribes 
' and copyists, more or less well founded in church 
tradition, as to the authorship of these writings. 

It would be crude indeed to take the few enigmatic 
words which embody the primeval tradition, whether 
those of church Fathers, Canon-makers, or scribes, 
regarding the origin of these eleven anonymous 
writings, our one datum of external evidence, prop- 
erly a subject for the most delicate, careful inves- 
tigation, and set it up as a complete and every 
way adequate account of the whole matter, to which 
research can add nothing but categorically to declare 
it either "true" or "false." Eesearch will prove it 
both and neither. The names of the writers of 
Hebrews, James, Jude, and 1, 2, and 3 John will 
probably remain unknown to us. The names attached 
by early report to the five historical books represent 
in each case the first and most important link in the 
long process, more complicated, if the new evidence 
constantly developing be believed, than even criticism 
has yet conceived it, through which the common pos- 
session of the Church in the story of Jesus' life and 
teaching and the story of its own origins came at last, 
in various important centres, to be embodied in our 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 279 

four Gospels and Book of Acts. To ask more of 
ancient tradition than the registration of this first and 
most important link is to demand more than we have 
a right to expect. The answer regarding the further 
phases of this obscure and complicated history must 
be sought by the indirect evidence of the books them- 
selves, an investigation which to-day is still only at 
its beginning. 



280 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 



TABLE OF APPKOXIMATE DATES 

Galatians, Corinth Spring of 50 a.d, 

1 and 2 Thessalonians . . Spring and Summer of 50 

2 Cor. 6 : 14-7 : 1 and 1 Corinthians, Ephesus, Winter of 53-54 
2 Cor. 10 : 1-13 : 10, Ephesus . . Summer of 54 
Fragments in Pastoral Epistles, Troas (?) Summer of 54 
2 Corinthians, Macedonia . . . Autumn of 54 

Eomans, Corinth February, 55 

Rom. 16 : 1-23, to Ephesus, from Corinth . February, 55 
Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon, Rome . 58-59 
Philippians and 2 Timothy (additions excepted), Rome, 60 
Hebrews 75-85 

1 Peter, Rome 75-85 

James, Rome (?) 85-90 

Jude, Proconsular Asia (?) 85-90 

2 Peter 100-150 

Mark, Rome 75-80 

Matthew, Jerusalem (?) ..... 80-90 

Luke-Acts, Antioch (?); 85-95 

Revelation, Ephesus 95 

1, 2, and 3 John, Ephesus 95-100 

John, Ephesus 100-110 



INDEX 



The page-references in this Index are intended to include foot- 
notes as well as text. 

The letters TC refer the reader to the table of contents, pp. 
xi-xy. 



Ahbot, Ezra, 23. 
Abbott, Edwin, 172, 188. 
Abbott, T. K., 115, 116, 117. 
Acts, Book of, 51. TC. ch. IX. 
Acts, Western text of, 69, 214, 

217, 220. 
Akhmim Ms. of Gospel of Peter, 

45, 52. 
Alexandrianism in Hebrews, 146. 
Alogi rejected Johannine writ- 
ings, 6. 
Ambrosiaster, 96. 
Anachronisms in Acts, 216, 225. 
Anonymity in O. T. and N. T., 

2, 175. 
Antichrist, 75, 78, 242. 
Antilegomena, see Disputed 

books. 
Antioch, Collision at, 65. 

Place (?) of writing to Gala- 

tians, 57. 
Apocalypse of John, 52. TC. 

ch. X. 
Apocalyptic ideas in Matt., 211; 

in Paul, 77, 119. 
Apocalyptic writings, 29, 52, 121, 

168, 232. 
Apocrypha in early Christian 

canon, 27, 142, 168. 
Apollos, 83, 148. 
Apostolicity of N. T. Books, 33, 

49. 



Aquila and Priscilla, 81, 83, 102. 
Aramaic original of Matt., 195 f. 
Aristo or Aristion (author of 

Mk. 16: 9-20), 42, 205. 
" Assumption of Moses," 120, 

168, 171. 
Augustine on the Gospels, 7. 
Authority in early Church, 27, 34. 

Badham, 207, 231. 
Balaamites, 169, 241. 
Baldensperger, 254. 
Barnabas, author (?) of Heb., 

33, 147 ; of 1 Peter, 157. Uncle 

to John Mark, 204. 
Barnabas, pseudo, 36. 
Bauer, Bruno, 21. 
Baur, F. C, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 56, 

108, 268. 
Blass, F., 214, 229, 273,274. 
Bleek, F., 11, 19. 
Bousset, W., 232, 235, 239, 244. 
Bretschneider, 6, 8. 

Caesarea, place (?) of Paul's 

writing, 55, 106. 
Cainite sect, 170, 245. 
Calvin, John, 3, 168. 
Canon, formation of, 2, 5. TC. 

ch. II. 
Canon of Catholic Epp., 150. 
Captivity, Epp. of, see Epistles. 



281 



282 



INDEX 



Carlstadt, A. R. B., 3. 

Catholic Epp., see Epistles. 

Christology of Paul, 116, 118 ; of 
John, 240. 

Church in Paul's conception, 112, 
119, 133, 138. 

Clemen, C, 22. 

Clement of Rome, 28, 31, 33, 35, 
134, 147, 151, 157, 161, 164 f. 

Clement of Alexandria, 48, 50, 
168, 229. 

Clementine Homilies and Recog- 
nitions, 13, 60, 206. 

Colossians, Ep. to. TC. ch. V. 

Conybeare and Howson, 23, 56. 

Corinthians, Epp. to, TC. ch. 
IV. Lost ep. to, in 2 Cor. cc. 
10-13, 93 f . Factions and scan- 
dals among, 87, 89. 

Credner, K. A., 9, 10, 19. 

Criticism, history of, TC. ch. I. 

Dalman, G., 196,212, 213, 215, 233. 

Date of N. T. writings, see under 
titles of the several books. 

Date of Nativity, 39 ; of Crucifix- 
ion, 266. 

Dates, table of approximate, 279. 

Davidson, S., 23, 146. 

De Wette, see Wette. 

Diary of Luke, 211, 215, 228. 

Diaspora, 155, 159, 164. 

Diatessaron, see Tatian. 

Dionysius of Alexandria, 232, 
240, 248. 

Dionysius of Corinth, 31. 

Diotrephes, 246. 

Displacements in John, 263, 271 f . 

Disputed books, 7, 8, 14, 27, 41, 
48, 167. 

Docetism, 92, 245. 

Dods, M., 160, 188, 196. 

Dutch and Swiss radical critics, 
21. 

Editorial work in Fourth Gospel, 
269, 274. 



Eichhorn, J. G., 7, 8, 19. 

Eichthal, d', 22. 

Elias, Apocalypse of, 121. 

Enoch, Prophecy of, 120, 168, 169, 
233. 

Ephesians, Ep. to, TC. ch. V. 

Ephesus, source of some Pauline 
Epp., 82; of Johannine writ- 
ings, 230 ; fragment addressed 
(?) to, 101 f. 

Epiphanius, 44. 

Epistles, use of in early Church, 
31, 49; of Paul, TC. chs. in, 
IV, V, VI; Catholic, TC. ch. 
VII; of captivity, 55, 106, TC. 
ch. V; Pastoral, TC. ch. VI. 

Eschatology of Paul, 75 f., 133. 

Eschatology of Jesus, 133. 

Eusebius, 3, 7, 40, 48, 50, 157, 168, 
197, 231, 240. 

Ewald, H., 19. 

External evidence of canonicity, 



Farrar, F. W., 56, 172. 

Feasts, Jewish in Fourth Gospel, 

258, 265. 
Fragments incorporated : 

in 2 Cor., 94, 95. 

in Rom., 101, 104. 

in Phil., 125. 

in Pastoral Epp., 128, 140. 

in Rev., 239. 
Friedlander, M., 255. 

Galatia, North or South? 58 f. 

Galatians, Ep. to, TC. ch. III. 

Gallio, 82. 

Gieseler, J. K. L., 19. 

Gloag, J. R., 23. 

Gloel, 22. 

Gnosticism, 18, 30, 61, 132, 169, 

230, 245, 255. 
Godet, 23, 25, 92, 196. 
Gospels, uncanonical, 30, 39. 
Gospels, the Four, 38, 47. TC. 

chs. VIII, IX, XL 



INDEX 



283 



Griesbach, J. J., on Gospels, 8. 
Guericke, H. E. F., 19. 

Hanlein, H. K. A., 6. 

Harnack, A., 14, 17,18, 146, 148, 

157, 161, 243. 
Haupt, E., 211. 
Havet, 22. 
Hebrews, Gospel of, 30, 45, 214, 

221. 
Hebrews, Ep. to, 33, 48, 50, 127. 

TC. ch. VI. 
Hegesippus, 28, 167. 
Heresies in N. T. times, 137, 168, 

241 f., 245, 254. 
Hennas, 29, 38, 47, 53, 159, 165, 

169. 
Hesse, F. H., 129. 
Hilgenfeld, A., 12, 16, 17, 76, 129. 
Hofmann, J. C. K., 19. 
Home, T. H., 9. 
Holsten, C, 16, 22. 
Holtzmann, H. J., 17-22, 28, 91, 

117, 129, 141, 146, 180, 196, 

253. 
Holtzmann, O., 251. 
Hug, J. L., 9. 

Ignatius" 30, 32, 35, 127. 
Inspiration in early Church, 28. 
"Interpolations," greater and 

less, in Luke, 223. 
Introduction, history of, TC. ch. I. 
Irenaeus, 40, 47, 197, 202, 210, 

231, 238. 

James, Ep. of, 50. TC. ch. Vn. 

Jerome, 44, 142,167. 

Jew and Gentile in early Church, 
100. 

Jewish Christianity, 17 ; in Matt., 
202. 

Johannine writings, TC. ch. X. 

John the Baptist in Fourth Gos- 
pel, 254, 261, 262. 

John, only one, at Ephesus, 231 ; 
a prophet, 236. 



John, Gospel of, 30, 32, 48, 49, 

50. TC. ch. XI. 
John, Epp. of, 50. TC. ch. X. 
John, Revelation of, 45, 46, 47. 

TC. ch. X. 
Judaising opponents of Paul, 

60, 125, 133. 
Judaising leaders in Hebrews, 

149. 
Judaism, 18, 203. 
Jude, Ep. of, 6, 50. TC. ch. VII. 
Julicher, 10, 18, 19, 21, 238. 
Justin Martyr, 28, 30, 32, 34, 39, 

45, 46, 199, 238, 249. 

Keim, T., 196, 229. 
Kostlin, J., 202. 

Lachmann, K., 19. 
Laodiceans, Ep. to, 52, 115. 
Latinisms in Mark, 204. 
Lightfoot, J. B., 23, 161, 269. 
Logia of Matt., 20, 44, 188, 193, 

197, 200, 221. 
Logia in John, 252, 256, 259. 
Logia of Oxyrhynchus, 192. 
Loman, A. D., 21, 68. 
Liicke, G. C. F., 10. 
Luke, Gospel of, 40, 50. TC. 

chs. VIII, IX. 
Lumby, J. R., 23. 
Luthardt, E., 19. 
Luther, M., 3, 148. 

Magi and Star, 39. 
Manen, van, 22. 
Mangold, W. L., 11, 19. 
Marcion, 6, 13, 34, 40, 52, 54 f., 

127, 175, 211. 
Mark, Gospel of, 20, 43, 48. TC. 

chs. VIII, IX. 
Matthew, 37, 38, 44. TC. chs. 

vni, IX. 
Mayor, J. B., 160. 
McGiffert, A. C, 23, 25, 57, 128, 

129, 157, 231. 
Meats, question of, 69, 90, 148. 



284 



INDEX 



Meyer, E., 55, 106. 
Michaelis, J. D., 4, 6, 7, 9, 254. 
Muratorian Canon, 3, 43, 50, 127, 

134, 211. 
Mystery of Christ, in Paul, 119, 

133, 138. 

Naber, S. A., 21. 
Nazarenes' Gospel, 44. 
Nero as persecutor, 78, 156. 
Nero in Apocalypse, 243. 
Nicolaitans, 170. 

Oral-tradition theory of Gospels, 

178 f., 188 f. 
Order of events in Gospels, 189, 

205. 
Origen on Hebrews, 7. 

Paley, Archdeacon, 56. 

Papias, 30, 32, 33, 40 f., 153, 189, 
231, 238, 249. 

Parousia, 74, 172. 

Pastoral, see Epistles. 

Pauline writings, questioned, 6; 
largely rejected, 16; rehabili- 
tated, 17; in early use, 31 f., 
51. TC. chs. Ill, IV, V, VI. 

Paulinism, 18. 

Paulus, H. E. G., 19. 

Peter, apostle, source of Mark, 
43,49, 176,189; "Gospel" of, 
46; "Memorabilia" of, 30; 
"Apocalypse" of, 173 ; "Preach- 
ing" of, 61, 198, 214, 221, 225, 
227. 

1 Peter and 2 Peter, TC. ch. 
VII. 

Pfleiderer, O., 17. 

Philemon, Ep. to, TC. ch. V. 

Philippians, Ep. to, TC. ch. V. 

Pierson, A., 21. 

Polycarp, 32, 35, 51, 127. 

Polycrates, 51. 

Pott, A., 214. 

Presbyter, anon . , at Ephesus, 271. 

Prisca or Priscilla, 81, 102, 148. 



Prophecy in N. T., 232. 
Proto-gospel theory, 20, 188, 
191 f., 224. 

Quarto-deciman controversy, 266. 
Quotations in the Fathers, 30. 

Ramsay, W. M., 56, 57, 59, 94, 156. 

Redactor of Luke-Acts, 212, 225. 

Renan, E., 11, 22, 56. 

Rendall, 142, 148. 

Reuss, E., 10, 19, 146, 205. 

Revelation, see John. 

Reville, MM., 22. 

Rhees, Rush, 56. 

Ritschl, A., 14, 146. 

Rome, protector and persecutor 

of the Church, 78, 156, 242-3. 
Romans, Ep. to, TC. ch. IV. 
Rushbrooke, W. G., 177, 188. 

Sabatier, 22, 56. 

Salmon, G., 23, 172, 176, 196. 

Salmond, S.D. F., 24. 

Sanday and Headlam, 154. 

Schaff, Philip, 23. 

Schleiermacher, F. D. E., 6, 8, 9, 
19. 

Schmidt, J. E. C, 6. 

Schools of criticism, 19, 21, 22. 

Schiirer, E., 146. 

Schwegler, A., 12, 13. 

" Scripture " in early Church, 
27, 35 f., 46, 148. 

Semler, J. S., 4. 

Serapion of Antioch, 46. 

Silvanus, author (?) of 1 Peter, 
155; author (?) of " We docu- 
ment," 271. 

Simon, Richard, 3. 

Sinaitic Syriac version of Gos- 

' pels, 46, 273. 

Soden, von, 141, 146, 170. 

Sosthenes, 82. 

Soter, Bishop of Rome, 31, 161. 

Speeches, in Acts, 226, 228. 

Speeches, in John, 257. 



INDEX 



285 



Spitta, F., 76, 163, 170, 273. 

Steck, R, 22, 68. 

Strauss, D. F., 11, 20. 

" Supernatural Religion," 17, 23. 

Synoptic problem, vi, 7, 8, 17, 

19,24. TC. chs. VIII, IX. 
Synoptic tradition discrepant 

from Johannine, 266. 

Tatian's Diatessaron, 46, 273. 
"Teaching of the Twelve" ( = 

Didache), 29, 37, 138, 169, 199. 
" Tendencies " in apostolic age, 

13, 14. 
Tertullian, 33, 48, 147. 
Theophilus of Antioch, 30. 
Thessalonians, 1 and 2, Epp. to, 

TC. ch. in. 
Timothy, 1 and 2, Epp. to, TC. 

ch. VI. 
Titus, Ep. to, TC. ch. VI. 
Tradition, growth of, TC. ch. II ; 

return to, 18, 32. 
Tubingen school, vi, vii, 11-17, 

207, 241. 
Two-document theory of Gos- 
pels, 181, 194. 

Uncanonical writings in early 
Church, 36. 



Urevangelium, see Proto-gospel. 

Variations among Gospels, 191. 
Vincent, M. R., 25, 212. 
Vision, a Hebraistic literary de- 
vice, 215, 226. 
Volkmar, G., 17, 146. 
Volter, D., 22. 



" We document," see Diary. 
Weiss, B., 24-27, 87, 154, 196, 201, 

214, 229, 261. 
Weiss, J., 218. 
Weisse, C. H., 20. 
Weizsacker, C, 15, 17, 25. 
Wendt, H. H., 252, 269, 273. 
Westcott, Bishop B. F., 176, 188, 

196. 
Westcott and Hort, 203. 
Wette, W. M. L. de, 7-9, 19. 
Wetzel, 179. 
Wilke, 20. 

Wordsworth, Bishop C, 160. 
Wright, A., 177, 180, 186, 188. 



Zahn, Theodor, 22, 24, 57, 146, 

155, 196, 244, 269. 
Zeller, E., 12, 13. 



New Testament Handbooks 



EDITED BY 

SHAILER MATHEWS 

Professor of New Testament History and Interpretation, 
University of Chicago 

Arrangements are made for the following volumes, and the publishers 
will, on request, send notice of the issue of each volume as it appears and 
each descriptive circular sent out later; such requests for information 
should state whether address is permanent or not : — 

The History of the Textual Criticism of the 
New Testament 

Prof. Marvin R. Vincent, Professor of New Testament Exegesis, 
Union Theological Seminary. \_Now ready. 

Professor Vincent's contributions to the study of the New Testament rank him 
among the first American exegetes. His most recent publication is " A Critical 
and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon " 
(Internatio?ial Critical Commentary'), which was preceded by a " Students' 
New Testament Handbook," " Word Studies in the New Testament," and 
others. 

The History of the Higher Criticism of the 
New Testament 

Prof. Henry S. Nash, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, 
Cambridge Divinity School. [A r ow ready. 

Of Professor Nash's " Genesis of the Social Conscience," The Outlook said: " The 
results of Professor Nash's ripe thought are presented in a luminous, compact, 
and often epigrammatic style. The treatment is at once masterful and helpful, 
and the book ought to be a quickening influence of the highest kind; it surely 
will establish the fame of its author as a profound thinker, one from whom we 
have a right to expect future inspiration of a kindred sort." 

Introduction to the Books of the New Testament 

Prof. B. Wisner Bacon, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, 
Yale University. [Now ready. 

Professor Bacon's works in the field of Old Testament criticism include " The 
Triple Tradition of Exodus," and "The Genesis of Genesis," a study of the 
documentary sources of the books of Moses. In the field of New Testament 
study he has published a number of brilliant papers, the most recent of which is 
" The Autobiography of Jesus," in the A merican journal of Theology. 

The History of New Testament Times in Palestine 

Prof. Shailer Mathews, Professor of New Testament History and 
Interpretation, The University of Chicago. \_Noiv ready. 

The Congregationalist says of Prof. Shailer Mathews's recent work, " The Social 
Teaching of Jesus" : "Re-reading deepens the impression that the author is 
scholarly, devout, awake to all modern thought, and yet conservative and pre- 
eminently sane. If, after reading the chapters dealing with Jesus' attitude 
toward man, society, the family, the state, and wealth, the reader will not agree 
with us in this opinion, we greatly err as prophets." 



The Life of Paul 

Prof. Rush Rhees, President of the University of Rochester. 

Professor Rhees is well known from his series of " Inductive Lessons " contributed 
to the Sunday School Times. His " Outline of the Life of Paul," privately 
printed, has had a flattering reception from New Testament scholars. 

The History of the Apostolic Age 

Dr. C. W. Votaw, Instructor in New Testament Literature, The 
University of Chicago. 

Of Dr. Votaw's " Inductive Study of the Founding of the Christian Church," Modern 
Church, Edinburgh, says: "No fuller analysis of the later books of the New 
Testament could be desired, and no better programme could be offered for their 
study, than that afforded in the scheme of fifty lessons on the Founding of the 
Christian Church, by Clyde W. Votaw. It is well adapted alike for practical 
and more scholarly students of the Bible." 

The Teaching of Jesus 

Prof. George B. Stevens, Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale 
University. 

Professor Stevens's volumes upon " The Johannine Theology," " The Pauline The- 
ology," as well as his recent volume on " The Theology of the New Testament," 
have made him probably the most prominent writer on biblical theology in 
America. His new volume will be among the most important of his works. 

The Biblical Theology of the New Testament 

Prof. E. P. Gould, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Prot- 
estant Episcopal Divinity School, Philadelphia. 
Professor Gould's Commentaries on the Gospel of Mark (in the International Criti- 
cal Commentary) and. the Epistles to the Corinthians (in the American Com- 



mentary) are critical and exegetical attempts to supply those elements which 
lacking in existing works of the same general aim and i 



I scope. [Now ready. 



The Teaching of Jesus and Modern Social Problems 

Prof. Francis G. Peabody, Professor of Christian Ethics, Harvard 
University. 

Professor Peabody's public lectures, as well as his addresses to the students of 
Harvard University, touch a wide range of modern problems. The many read- 
ers of his "Mornings in the College Chapel" and his published studies upon 
social and religious topics, will welcome this new work. 

The History of Christian Literature until Eusebius 

Prof. J. W. Platner, Professor of Early Church History, Harvard 

University. 
Professor Platner's work will not only treat the writings of the early Christian 
writers, but will also treat of the history of the New Testament Canon. 

OTHERS TO FOLLOW 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 



OCT 11 1900 



?6 



